The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Tonk

just become someone states their theory as a fact doesnt mean it to be fact... many man-years worth of research in some cases go into the research to turn a theory into a fact, just because al gore says something is fact doesnt mean it is true, theory: the sun is yellow fact: the sun APPEARS to look yellow. fact: the sun is white, but the incomming light hitting the atmosphere reflects the red, and disperses the blue into the atmosphere, the atmosphere(sky) becomes blue, and the remaining colors (yellow) go all the way through the layers of the atmosphere to our eyes, so that when we look at the sun, it appears yellow.

while some theorys end up (with alot of extensive research ) becomming a fact, a majority of them get proved wrong in the end, with FACTS



as for the post reffering to me being home schooled, back up your theory as to why my post makes no sence... with facts preferably =P

yes my years might be off, but the patern shows that, every 10-20 years for the past 100+ years, we have gone back and forth between global cooling and global warming, and that al gores theory is going to be shot down in the next few years.


i should sell some 'carbon credits' to al gore for the private jet that he flys in (if you convert jet fuel/mileage to car/road mileage, the average private jet gets about 5 nautical mpg) (thats like a 2.5 hummer convoy) and the 10,000 sq ft mansion he has to heat in the winter, and cool in the summer, he is a hypocrit in all shapes and forms

and when this was brought up in the news, shortly there after, he took the public transit train in norway on his way to pick up his nobel peace prize (when the media was turned towards him)

I think you are a bit confused. There is no theory that the sun is yellow. And I don't ever think that it has ever been a fact either.

I am not arguing about the validity of Al Gores statements. I am trying to point out to you the difference between fact and theory. A fact is a piece of information that has one state, true. A theory varies in strength based upon many facts.

Actually my post supports your position a bit if you would slow down and think. Many on the "the world is dying because of man" side state that it is a fact. And I stated a fact can be disproved with a single observation.

BTW. The sun is not white either. It emits many different wavelengths of energy and various intensities over time and thus is multi-coulored.

Your statement about there being a cycle to the temperature is correct. Those studying this issue are aware of this, don't you think? In fact, read the article I just posted. See, the scientist aren't as stupid as you think, are they?

[Gambit7]

This will be my only post in this thread.

If average temps. on a planet go up over time, that denotes Global Warming. The Earth's average temps are going up (even factoring in cyclically dips and rises), this is a fact.

So... uhhhh... How can Global Warming be a myth?


-end of line

p.s.
note, I didnt distinguish HOW this Global Warming occurs

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Gambit7

This will be my only post in this thread.

If average temps. on a planet go up over time, that denotes Global Warming. The Earth's average temps are going up (even factoring in cyclically dips and rises), this is a fact.

So... uhhhh... How can Global Warming be a myth?


-end of line

p.s.
note, I didnt distinguish HOW this Global Warming occurs

As Cingular pointed out to me, and I had forgotten this, Global Warming as it pertains to this thread is more than just increase in temperature. It also relates to warming to the point of affecting the human species in a significant way and if human activities are, at least in part, causing it.

But there are some that deny that global tempatures are increasing. I don't know how they can but they do.

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But there are some that deny that global tempatures are increasing. I don't know how they can but they do.

(dammit Gringo, I said this was my only post)

Anyways, that's the problem. There's a huge amount of folks that use the logic that the Earth isnt actually warming to bolster their argument that humans are doing nothing wrong. These people know that if they allowed themselves to believe that the Earth is actually warming quite substantially, that it would lead them to investigate the cause and effect and perhaps inact legislation to mitigate the damages. And this scares them, so they simply turn their backs on the facts - i.e. "no, the Earth isnt warming." In a way, it's a blatant middle-finger to the Socratic method.

The other thing that bothers me... regardless of if Greenhouse gases even CAUSE Global Warming, the fact remains that Greenhouse gases are STILL bad and we should work for more efficient means of energy production. Global Warming itself is in a way slowing down progress in this regard because people seem to think it's the only reason to progress in these areas. Fact is, Global Warming is but a small factor in the bigger picture... and a factor that only really manifests itself destructively over a long period of time. There are other things to worry about that dont get enough press as to why we should look for other ways, but making Global Warming the frontrunner issue just makes it easier for the aretards to combat it.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by Gambit7

The other thing that bothers me... regardless of if Greenhouse gases even CAUSE Global Warming, the fact remains that Greenhouse gases are STILL bad and we should work for more efficient means of energy production.

I'm sorry, I feel like you left out a fairly important step in your logic here. What exactly makes Greenhouse gasses inherently bad, aside from their potential contributions to Global Warming? If it turns out not to be causing our planet to melt, what makes extra CO2 in the air a bad thing? Plants love it after all, and it increases agricultural yields.

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I'm sorry, I feel like you left out a fairly important step in your logic here. What exactly makes Greenhouse gasses inherently bad, aside from their potential contributions to Global Warming? If it turns out not to be causing our planet to melt, what makes extra CO2 in the air a bad thing? Plants love it after all, and it increases agricultural yields.

The majority of Greenhouse Gas creating industry in this world co-exists with the term "pollution." Nothing healthy is ever linked with Greenhouse Gases. That was more my point. Obviously, CO2 itself isnt as harmful as we think (except to thicken the atmosphere)... but the stuff it comes packaged with is bad in itself.

If we move beyond Global Warming and look at the bigger picture as to why we may be causing it, we find things that are disturbing in their own right - regardless of even if they help to raise temps or not. Stuff like deforestation, population explosion, irresponsible agriculture, etc.

The logic some people use is that it's okay to strip down trees once Global Warming is disproven. That was part of my point.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I'm sorry, I feel like you left out a fairly important step in your logic here. What exactly makes Greenhouse gasses inherently bad, aside from their potential contributions to Global Warming? If it turns out not to be causing our planet to melt, what makes extra CO2 in the air a bad thing? Plants love it after all, and it increases agricultural yields.

They are called green house gasses for a reason. They contribute to the green house effect. Which is causing the warming of the planet. I don't think that is being debated. What I think is being debated is if humans have, or even can, release enough of them to have a significant effect on global tempature.

But gambit is right. The underlying issue is about environmentalism as a whole. And many environmentalists see GW as the most viable way to push through their agenda. Green house gasses are produced by things they don't like so they are inherently bad.

The opposition to environmentalism also seem to feel that if GW comes to be dogma that it will hurt their cause. Which seems to be using natural resources in anyway that the market demands with no limits or regulation. That the free market will save us all. The current dogma is under attack.

At least that is what I think.

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

They are called green house gasses for a reason. They contribute to the green house effect. Which is causing the warming of the planet. I don't think that is being debated. What I think is being debated is if humans have, or even can, release enough of them to have a significant effect on global tempature.

But gambit is right. The underlying issue is about environmentalism as a whole. And many environmentalists see GW as the most viable way to push through their agenda. Green house gasses are produced by things they don't like so they are inherently bad.

The opposition to environmentalism also seem to feel that if GW comes to be dogma that it will hurt their cause. Which seems to be using natural resources in anyway that the market demands with no limits or regulation. That the free market will save us all. The current dogma is under attack.

At least that is what I think.

Precisely, and if Greenhouse Gas, human-created Global Warming is proven to be wrong then the whole Environmentalist movement takes a HUGE hit, because frankly I think they've overplayed their hand tied to Global Warming.

It's almost like all the work done in the 80's and early 90's (prior to modern climatology) is worthless if they cant prove this one simple point; because people can't see past what's right in front of their noses.

It's way too easy for the establishment to fight one cause, than fighting many causes that make even more sense. And believe you me, they (the establishment) know this and are happy about it. The Greenthumbs of today are nowhere near as adament as they used to be, because it's like everyone is sitting around and waiting for that one controversial piece of data that will prove GW.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Gambit7

Precisely, and if Greenhouse Gas, human-created Global Warming is proven to be wrong then the whole Environmentalist movement takes a HUGE hit, because frankly I think they've overplayed their hand tied to Global Warming.

I think both of you are way off here. You seem to believe that there is some type of huge, organized, underground culture of environmentalists with an agenda. This is not true. The truth is just that there are actually human being who care about the environment. There is no green boogie man that wants to take your SUV away.

I'm an environmentalists. That doesn't mean I'm a radical hippie terrorist who hates capitalism. I can tell you for certain that if man-made global warming was disproved I'd be quite happy, and still an environmentalist. Those of you who think that "environmentalists" are happy about global warming and trying to use it to their advantage are mislead and incorrect. All an environmentalist gets from global warming is one of the biggest "I told you so" 's in history. So it makes sense the other side, the anti-environment crowd, is understandably defensive.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I think both of you are way off here. You seem to believe that there is some type of huge, organized, underground culture of environmentalists with an agenda. This is not true. The truth is just that there are actually human being who care about the environment. There is no green boogie man that wants to take your SUV away.

I'm an environmentalists. That doesn't mean I'm a radical hippie terrorist who hates capitalism. I can tell you for certain that if man-made global warming was disproved I'd be quite happy, and still an environmentalist. Those of you who think that "environmentalists" are happy about global warming and trying to use it to their advantage are mislead and incorrect. All an environmentalist gets from global warming is one of the biggest "I told you so's" in history. So it makes sense the other side, the anti-environment crowd, is understandably defensive.

No, but environmentalists do have a certain mindset. And they do have an agenda. I do agree with some (much?) of what their agenda is. But I also believe that they jump at anything that might even remotely further that agenda. Sometimes to their own detriment.

Your post kinda proves this. Instead of reading what I have said and my past posts you just lump me into some kind of category. Go ahead, I will give you a few minutes to go back and read it.

Ok. See? I mock those that mock GW. I point out that there is good science behind the theory. I also think that radical hippies have a role to play in this grand drama. I don't like our reliance on carbon based fuels. Alternate renewable energy sources should be playing a much, much large role in suppling our energy needs. All that and more.

But to deny that there isn't an agenda for those pushing the catastrophe of GW speaks volumes. It boils down to a religious thing. They are saying, basically, that they are trying to save the earth from the evils of some dark force. It is a religion. This can also be seen in the "it's us against them" attitude. Anybody that doesn't think exactly the way you do is automatically the enemy.

Plus your own statement that GW is a vindication of your long held beliefs. Almost as if it is the second coming of Christ?

You greenies really hurt more than you help. You caterwauling only serves your purpose. And as more studies come out that says GW is not going to end mans existence (as I am sure they will) the general population will take your claims, and future claims, with a grain a salt.

The boy who cried wolf. Because there is very little evidence that says human existence is threatened. Only that certain populations are. Those populations will suffer, if the theory is correct, tremendously. And many other populations will end up paying far more, in monetary terms, than it would have cost to nip the problem in the bud.

But instead you run around like chicken little claiming the sky is falling at a time when rational discussion is needed.

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I think both of you are way off here. You seem to believe that there is some type of huge, organized, underground culture of environmentalists with an agenda. This is not true. The truth is just that there are actually human being who care about the environment. There is no green boogie man that wants to take your SUV away.

That huge, organzied, underground culture of environmentalists happen to be everyday people like you and me. The mistake WE make is clinging to GW to solve underlying issues, when those issues should be solved on their own merit.

I wasnt specifically referring to Greenpeace or any such organized group, but simply people who care about the environment in general.

You struck a major point I already made by saying there's "no green boogie man that wants to take your SUV away." Well, in the hayday of Environmentalism there was. Nowadays that boogie man is reserved to clinging to the GW problem, making him a LOT more docile and easier to contain.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

But to deny that there isn't an agenda for those pushing the catastrophe of GW speaks volumes. It boils down to a religious thing. They are saying, basically, that they are trying to save the earth from the evils of some dark force. It is a religion. This can also be seen in the "it's us against them" attitude. Anybody that doesn't think exactly the way you do is automatically the enemy.

Who are you talking about? Who is this worldwide organization? Who is pushing global warming science on the public? What is the name of the group that is on a campaign to tell people that the world is ending? Al Gore is the only person I can think of that anyone could point to and say that they made a real effort to bring people up to speed about rather old news. Of course, on the other hand, there is quite a well known and documented effort to suppress information about the environment from governments and industries.

The only agenda a scientist, environmentalist, or any intelligent person has is to learn the truth and act appropriately. Of course, on the other hand, politicians by nature have an agenda to lie.

The only "us and them" in the argument that I know of is science, knowledge, and rational thought being pitted against the opinions of ideologues and uninformed people.

This talk about the "religion" of global warming is just pure craziness and nonsense. The people who are ranting about invisible enviro-nazis on this thread have demonstrated that they're the fanatical ones who go by faith alone.

[GhostintheShell]

The only thing that seems to matter anymore in this thread is who gets in the last word...

[leejo]

I agree!

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by leejo

I agree!

I disagree!

Seriously, I recently came across an article that did a good job of explaining how climate change is a natural process that would take place even if humans did not exist. So, climate change (or global warming and cooling) are in fact natural processes that do exist independently of human influence.

The debate is over how much humans are contributing to or altering these natural processes. I have stated before that this is an unwinnable debate, as we will never truly know the answer because the human race is still in relative infancy when it comes to scientific understanding of Earth's systems (we are even in pre-infancy when it comes to matters of public support for general scientific inquiry). I have argued that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of environmental consequence.