TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
CanadaCraig Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
CanadaCraig's Avatar
 
Age: 56
Gender: Male

Posts: 854
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 27th 2009, 12:49 PM

Hi Everyone!!

I hope you're OK.

Click on THIS to read a very interesting article/revelation that just might end up proving that 'man' is NOT - after all - responsible [OR perhaps NEARLY as responsible] for so-called 'Global Warming' as 'we [The world community] have been [mis]lead to believe.

"It turns out that our planet has been safe from man all along, and the climate change alarmists knew it."

"They're sort of flabbergasted that global warming stopped 10 years ago"


I do NOT intend to take this ONE article - this ONE story - and 'run with it' - concluding that this is PROOF that 'man' was/is NOT responsible for 'global warming'....

But for the record [And I've said this before] I do NOT believe that 'man' IS the cause of 'global warming'. I believe history tells us [IF we are to believe the scientists] that the world simply goes through different phases. The 'ice age' - for instance - was not caused by 'man'. And neither is whatever is happening to the world NOW. [Insofar as the world as a whole is concerned]

Hey!! That reminds me of a joke?

What do YOU think of your Uranus as a [w]hole?! lol


I believe in environmentally friendly cars and refrigerators [And making use - via recycling and so on - of as many previously used products as we can] BECAUSE of the effect poor air quality has on US - as human beings. And not for any other reason.

I trust that some of you will have something to say about this!! lol

GREAT BIG HUG
Craig!!
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 27th 2009, 04:25 PM

As far as I can tell, and admittedly the story is still very new, a few climate-change researchers resorted to the same underhanded PR tactics that anti-climate-change advocates have been using en masse for years. If you really want to make a big deal of this, you're pretty much obligated to point an equally damning finger at the entire oil-funded denial movement. It boggles my mind that a couple emails have caused more skepticism about global warming than the reams of reported such cases from the other side of the fence, but then I suppose private funding and a cultural head-in-the-sand mentality will do that.

I don't really mean this aggressively, and certainly not toward you Craig, but everything I have read, and everything my mum and stepfather know - both of whom are incredibly well-versed on the subject - point to global warming being only slightly less certain than gravity. To me, the possibility that global warming is false is about the same as the possibility of cigarettes not causing cancer: no matter how many millions are spent by private-interest groups in asserting so, the fact remains that they are wrong. Interesting note, by the way: much of the anti-global-warming money is in fact coming from the same sources that tried to cover up the carcinogenic effects of smoking. Food for thought?


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 27th 2009, 05:53 PM

My physics teacher once gave us a discourse on how global warming is natural (climate fluctuations and such) and I was, and still am, amazed at his reasons for this. They centred on the arguments that 1. you can't possibly measure the weather situation at every point on the planet (and??) and 2. a high-ranking scientific body doesn't believe in global warming (didn't quite a few high-ranking scientific bodies believe without reasoning that homosexuality was a sign of mental illness?). I'm hardly going to take "...the disclosure of e-mails between so-called climate experts involved with the University of Anglia's Climate Research Unit in Britain" over solid evidence (post-9/11 records for example).
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 27th 2009, 05:59 PM

I've not read your post cos I'm short on time and will come back, but yes of course it is, global warming a very uncertain area of science and even a basic knowledge of chemistry will teach you this.
It really annoys me that some of your teachers haven't been teaching you the actual arguements that have been put forward, some are incredibly well supported.
Of course it would be political suicide to admit you don't believe in global warming.
Ah I wish I had more time to reply to this!

What IS certain though is that finding other sources for fuel is no bad thing, they are non-rewable and will run out!
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 27th 2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake View Post
I've not read your post cos I'm short on time and will come back, but yes of course it is, global warming a very uncertain area of science and even a basic knowledge of chemistry will teach you this.
It really annoys me that some of your teachers haven't been teaching you the actual arguements that have been put forward, some are incredibly well supported.
Of course it would be political suicide to admit you don't believe in global warming.
Ah I wish I had more time to reply to this!

What IS certain though is that finding other sources for fuel is no bad thing, they are non-rewable and will run out!
To be fair, many things on the "liberal agenda" are political suicide too. It took this long just to get a black guy into office. Who wants to place bets on when the first atheist lesbian president will get voted in?

Out of curiosity though, what are the incredibly well-supported arguments you're mentioning? I'd probably by a little less bemused by the debate on this if I'd actually run across more compelling evidence than propaganda videos for the denial point-of-view.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
CanadaCraig Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
CanadaCraig's Avatar
 
Age: 56
Gender: Male

Posts: 854
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 27th 2009, 11:48 PM

Hi Fletcher!!

I hope you're having a super fine day!!

There is a difference - a BIG difference - in believing in 'global warming' AND believing that MAN is responsible for it. I do not believe that MAN is responsible for it. Even though I do believe that it's quite possible that the world is warming up. And when it comes to all that you and your mom/stepfather have read on the subject - it requires great FAITH on their part [And on your part] to accept that information as 'truth'. For none of you - I'm sure - have first hand knowledge of such things. [Anymore than I have] And just so you know - I DO point my finger at those who claim that 'we' are running out of oil. I was about 10 years old [Back in 1973] when people were lining up at gas stations by the dozens - waiting for hours on end - for the next limited supply of fuel. President Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph in order to 'save fuel'. We were warned that by 1990 or so - the world's fuel supply would be exhausted. Many people [Including many - if not most - scientists] were CONVINCED of that 'fact'. Some people accused those scientists [And others who agreed with them] of scare mongering and argued against the idea. Guess who was proven to be right?! When it comes to food - I also believe that there is no such thing as a 'food shortage'. Nor do I believe in the idea of there being a 'population explosion'. [There being more people than the world can handle] The fuel/food/population concerns are anchored [I believe] on man's mismanagement and - even more so - on man's greed. I believe - that if man wasn't so self-serving the problem concerning the starving millions [For instance] could be dealt with in a matter of weeks.

I suppose the question that must be asked is WHY? As in WHY would someone want to convince the world that man is responsible for global warming? And WHY would someone want to convince the world that man is NOT responsible? What is there to gain - for either side? I'm not quite sure what the answer is...... but usually the answer has something to do with profits and power. And in this case - I think - the 'man IS responsible' side has a lot to gain - which makes ME even more suspicious of their arguments. Case in point - the scientists mentioned in the story that I linked you too have already been given more than $20,000,000 for their 'work'. They have been paid - in fact - to PROVE their suspicions. [To prove that man is indeed responsible for global warming] They were NOT paid to prove otherwise. Would you - as a scientist - as a man - be willing to kill the goose who keeps giving you golden eggs - if you discovered something that would argue against the very thing that you have been paid to prove as fact?! It wouldn't be easy to do - that's for sure.

Lots and lots of question yet unanswered. And like everything else - I'm never absolutely, positively sure of anything. But I do know that scientists are human. And I DO have some understand of human beings. And it is that understanding that leads me to question any and all 'conclusions'. For I know that human beings are amazingly biased creatures. [Even if they sometimes try not to be]

GREAT BIG HUG
Craig!!
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
tk338 Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
tk338's Avatar
 
Gender: Male
Location: UK

Posts: 1,268
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 12:50 AM

I heard this a few years back, 2 at the most to be honest but it makes sense! The ice age and then hotter times, I mean the world hasn't stayed at this temperature since the beginning of time!

Running out of fuel, I don't believe in the slightest! Theres maybe we are using it up faster than it was created, but the reason prices are going up mostly is tax and increased cost for getting it too us, not that oil itself is running out. Also its partly because I don't want to believe it, but if there was a fuel shortage, no way would we be handling it as we are now . Its more a problem of getting countries to extract and sell their oil however.

Same on the population explosion too! No way are we ever going to run out of space, food or anything. Ok if we all lived like the people who really waste food do yes we'd be hard up, but I think God created the earth with enough supplies to support as many people as it would hold . I work serving food, and we have too keep some stocked all the time (fast food) if it passes its holding time then we have to chuck it for risk of food poisoning :/. If things like this were abolished we'd be much better off! I will say that doesn't happen often, we keep inline with carefully plotted predictions as to how much will be sold, but sometimes, well, its not always perfect!

As to why would someone blame man for global warming maybe its all they could come up with at the time? I think its more like a group of people wanted to be able to say I told you so ... You built these huge factories and then blaming the worlds demise on them.

Not true!

Like you say a lot comes down to scare mongering, bias, and a craving for power...

I'm not worried and I don't know I ever will be, I live my life carefully, I don't waste however I don't go without to 'save the earth', and if everyone lived that way... Maybe it'd make a difference? One things certain some people will never change their ways... And I don't intend to change mine to counter for their living habits.

We won't run out of fuel... If were out of oil one day, we're not too far off replacements in fact some are already in place, and then theres hundreds of more ideas, the most interesting I find to be the hydrogen fuel cell, which I honestly think in 20 years will be in common use!

THEN we can use our 100% renewable energy, to clean the sea water from our over flowing seas whether it be mans fault or not, and run our cars from water .

Finally on the too many people front... If there honestly are, for the amount of food/space there is land and food prices will go up, people will no longer be able to afford kids and there'll be less kids around... Simple

What ever happens though, I'm living, living happily to wherever life takes me



How can one love themselves, when they love absolutely nothing?
Do something that is interesting. If it is not interesting, find out why it is not interesting.
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
her_beautiful_mistake's Avatar
 
Name: Rachel
Gender: Female
Location: Britland

Posts: 2,262
Blog Entries: 29
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 02:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
To be fair, many things on the "liberal agenda" are political suicide too. It took this long just to get a black guy into office. Who wants to place bets on when the first atheist lesbian president will get voted in?

Out of curiosity though, what are the incredibly well-supported arguments you're mentioning? I'd probably by a little less bemused by the debate on this if I'd actually run across more compelling evidence than propaganda videos for the denial point-of-view.
I'll dig out my chemistry textbooks from last year hehe.
there was a great documentary on it (though very biased!) on channel four i'm trying to find a link to you.
you could also use google too, it's called research
site you might find helpful http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

**EDIT** I think I found it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
not going to lie, bit too drunk to bother to watch it to doubel check that it is the right one...

It is my viewpoint, by the way, that mankinds actions have impacted on global warming. Part of my chem course last year though I had to study the arguements put forward and was suprised.

i always remind myself that 100 years ago we thought the earth was flat, and that in 100 years they might think what we consider fact now to be absolutely ridiculous... it is entirely possible that global warming is not the result of mans actions.. though one could not put forward a firm case that man has not had a detrimental impact on the environment. hmm going into essay mode must stop

hm I think I've consumed far too much alcohol to make a coherent alcohol... i'll keep searching fo rthe link but remember it's not impartial and there is a counter-arguement for every point they make pretty much... i always found this stuff really interesting. dammit i knew i should have applied for ES at ucl.

Last edited by her_beautiful_mistake; November 28th 2009 at 02:21 AM.
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 06:11 AM

Interesting article indeed. If the author has indeed seen the emails, why has he edited the quote to make it read in a way that supports his argument? He has quoted one part of the email: "trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years... to hide the decline." and missed out a chunk of information that could give alternate meaning to the sentence from the e-mail.
This man also calls other reputable scientists as "alarmists", thus he is playing to an audience and I wouldn't be surprised he's written articles similar to this before.
It's also an opinion article in which the author makes irrelevant appeals and paints an unfair picture of the British Professor, I'm quite sure his research has not been solely on climate change. $22.6 million in research grants since 1990 for the same topic? I don't think so.

The article is biased and has no hard evidence, therefore I will not believe a word of it.

Global warming can't be anything but anthropogenic. It's barely started...apparently Europe in August 2003 and July 2006, Eastern Europe in 2007 , New Orleans 2005, Cumbria, England earlier this month, Boscastle, England 2004, the Australian droughts, heat waves and a dust storm, are all normal events? Within a decade?
I'd like to see the hard evidence that proves global warming driven climate change was not the cause of these events.


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela


   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
CanadaCraig Offline
Member
Senior TeenHelper
*******
 
CanadaCraig's Avatar
 
Age: 56
Gender: Male

Posts: 854
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CompassionateSoul View Post
Interesting article indeed. If the author has indeed seen the emails, why has he edited the quote to make it read in a way that supports his argument? He has quoted one part of the email: "trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years... to hide the decline." and missed out a chunk of information that could give alternate meaning to the sentence from the e-mail.
This man also calls other reputable scientists as "alarmists", thus he is playing to an audience and I wouldn't be surprised he's written articles similar to this before.
It's also an opinion article in which the author makes irrelevant appeals and paints an unfair picture of the British Professor, I'm quite sure his research has not been solely on climate change. $22.6 million in research grants since 1990 for the same topic? I don't think so.

The article is biased and has no hard evidence, therefore I will not believe a word of it.

Global warming can't be anything but anthropogenic. It's barely started...apparently Europe in August 2003 and July 2006, Eastern Europe in 2007 , New Orleans 2005, Cumbria, England earlier this month, Boscastle, England 2004, the Australian droughts, heat waves and a dust storm, are all normal events? Within a decade?
I'd like to see the hard evidence that proves global warming driven climate change was not the cause of these events.
Hi CompassionateSoul!!

I hope you're OK.

Although the examples you gave regarding recent climate related events is seemingly impressive evidence [To some people] that man is responsible - it is certainly not proof. The 'hard evidence' that you and others have been hanging your hat on is now in question. [Even more so than before] Granted - the 'author' quite likely edited and/or 'toyed' with the email conversations in order to support more fully his bias - but who's kidding who. If the tables were turned - the exact same thing would happen. That is the nature of man. [Unfortunately] And this is why the absolute truth is so evasive and so difficult to find. As for what you perceive to be abnormal events - do any of us know if what the world is going through now is indeed abnormal OR is it something that the world has gone through time and time again? I say - we don't know that either. Just because CNN is videotaping the events - that doesn't [necessarily] mean that they truly are unique.

As for wanting to see 'hard evidence' to prove that something is NOT true - I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Man has been accused of doing something. It is not up to 'man' to prove that he is 'innocent' - but up to his accusers to prove that he isn't.

GREAT BIG HUG
Craig!!
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
ThrashAttack Offline
Banned
I've been here a while
********
 
ThrashAttack's Avatar
 
Name: Will
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Edge of Oblivion

Posts: 1,375
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 10:25 AM

There has been 30 or so instances of the climate altering itself on Earth and none of them were created by man. Im not saying that the Human Race isent responsible for the current change in our climate but its ignorant to say that we are not contributing to it.
  Send a message via MSN to ThrashAttack  
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by soulkiller7 View Post
There has been 30 or so instances of the climate altering itself on Earth and none of them were created by man. Im not saying that the Human Race isent responsible for the current change in our climate but its ignorant to say that we are not contributing to it.
Yes, natural climate change does happen however it happens over massive periods of time. The climate change that is being discussed here is extremely recent (relatively of course).

I'm amazed at people denying that we're running out of oil. I know an engineer who has colleagues in the oil business, and he's told me that if it weren't for new technologies that enable us to dig deeper it'd be almost impossible to secure a continuous supply. You should really read up about how oil is formed before making statements like that.
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
l0stCause Offline
chaos walks
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
l0stCause's Avatar
 
Age: 27

Posts: 277
Join Date: November 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 28th 2009, 05:00 PM

yes humans arent the onl factor in global warming put were sure as hell helping it along the way,


“Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.”
   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
Nightblood. Offline
jus drein jus daun
I've been here a while
********
 
Nightblood.'s Avatar
 
Gender: She/Her
Location: United States

Posts: 1,829
Blog Entries: 37
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 29th 2009, 12:23 PM

Really, I don't think it matters if it's us or not. Humans are the virus, and Earth is the body. Eventually, the body will rid itself of the virus. The end of humanity is inevitable, whether it's because of global warming or not. As to when, I don't think you can tell.



"We all have battle scars, Finn. Suck it up and build a brace for yours."
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 29th 2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaCraig View Post
Although the examples you gave regarding recent climate related events is seemingly impressive evidence [To some people] that man is responsible - it is certainly not proof.
Very true, but it's not evidence that proves anything. If we can't explain it then it's just random events, right? Man cannot directly be blamed off the bat, that's nonsense, I'm no alarmist, people who say that are and don't understand fully the science behind it. This is a major flaw in the environmental movement of the last 20 years. Many people look at cause and effect with little regard to the basic science. I agree with you that some people are foolish enough to jump in head first and point the blame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaCraig View Post
The 'hard evidence' that you and others have been hanging your hat on is now in question.
I don't see these events as hard evidence, the science behind what causes these events and how it was changed from the normal conditions is the hard evidence for me.
Hard evidence for me is that CO2 concentrations have risen to 387 ppm, when in 2007 the concentrations were at 384 parts per million. That's a small number, but when you consider it includes the entire atmosphere than surrounds our planet, that's a huge change in a very small amount of geological time. I cannot find any natural event happening on the planet so fast that would cause these increases. What is happening? Two countries are industrializing, with a total population of 2,504,692,185, as 38.6% of the world's total population now have available to them, cars and national and international air travel for cheaper than 10 years ago. I think that would be something to consider in the rises of CO2 concentrations, and the changes in arctic and antarctic sea ice, loss of glacial ice and global deforestation.
Those changes in human civilization cannot be ignored, they undeniably contribute to global warming purely due to the fact that the emissions of an industrializing country skyrocket until they plateau decades later. Increases in emissions, lead to more greenhouse gases such as Methane, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide (all anthropogenic greenhouse gases). This starts a vicious circle of positive feedback in the natural world, because the natural state has been altered too far beyond normal, over a short period of time, for Gaia to be able to re-balance it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaCraig View Post
As for what you perceive to be abnormal events - do any of us know if what the world is going through now is indeed abnormal OR is it something that the world has gone through time and time again?
Consider this.
The Gaia Theory is an ecological theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and bio-geochemical conditions on Earth to create a preferred homeostasis. This now widely accepted theory implies the Earth is a living organism that is able to regulate itself.

Some examples of how it's been done in the past are the ice ages after warm periods.
For example, in the carboniferous period, atmospheric CO2 was at 800ppm, sea levels were between 80m and 120m above current sea levels.
The period of time after that, Permian, CO2 levels were at 900ppm and there was 115% more oxygen than present day.
CO2 concentrations rose to 1950 ppm by the Jurassic period and Oxygen was at 130% of modern levels.

This where the tipping point was. Gaia then started to reduce levels of CO2, by the next period - the Cretaceous - CO2 was at 1700ppm and Oxygen 150% of modern day. In 51 million years, by the Paleogene Period, CO2 levels dropped to 500ppm and oxygen levels dropped again to 130%. In the past it has also taken Gaia at least 183 million years to reduce CO2 concentrations from 4500 ppm to the 800ppm Carboniferous levels.
The current Neogene period has had a mean CO2 level of 280 parts per million. Now it's 110 to 120 parts per million higher than pre-industrial levels, when between the Carboniferous and Permian periods Gaia could only manage to change CO2 concentrations by 100 parts per million, over far longer than 300 years.

Current increases are beyond anything seen before in the natural world. Within the last 400,000 years CO2 concentrations have barely gone above 300ppm, and have been as low as 175-180 ppm. How do we know this? Ice cores, taken from thousands of meters down, bubbles of air trapped for hundreds of thousands of years give us a clear idea of atmospheric composition in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaCraig View Post
As for wanting to see 'hard evidence' to prove that something is NOT true - I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
For me, Ice cores are hard evidence from the past that when compared to today, and the recent changes (the last 300 years) point to industrialization, one can safely say, this isn't natural.

What's also interesting that in order to keep life balanced during the Carboniferous period, there was an ice age, small as it was, the ice caps were huge. Now that so much has been changed over a very short amount of geological time, Gaia has not had time to adjust, it's as though the composition has changed in the blink of an eye and Gaia's system has become unbalanced. It's likely that the Earth will now move to a hot state at a faster pace than in the past. Gaia has the added strain of 11.61% (as of 2005) of it's land surface used for arable farming and permanent crops, most of which was previously covered with forest (a huge carbon sink).


This is a tiny amount of the evidence that has me fairly convinced the current warming and climate events are not caused by any natural changes rooted in Gaia.

I hope anyone who reads understands it easily and enjoyed it. I may post something like this to my blog.... (PM me an opinion? :P)


@Elf Punk, I like that analogy! Well said.


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela


   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Double X Offline
bee boop
I've been here a while
********
 
Double X's Avatar
 
Name: Kyle
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Boston

Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: March 11th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - November 29th 2009, 07:43 PM

Honestly, I think there is scientific "evidence" on both sides so I honestly have no idea. I used to believe in man made global warming but I am not sure how much man is exactly causing. I do know that what we are doing can't possibly help and we should definitely find other sources of energy anyways so we aren't relying on countries to keep our engines moving.


"We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take." -- May 1968, French Graffiti
   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
slickguy55 Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
slickguy55's Avatar
 

Posts: 151
Join Date: June 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 4th 2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake View Post
I've not read your post cos I'm short on time and will come back, but yes of course it is, global warming a very uncertain area of science and even a basic knowledge of chemistry will teach you this.
It really annoys me that some of your teachers haven't been teaching you the actual arguements that have been put forward, some are incredibly well supported.
Of course it would be political suicide to admit you don't believe in global warming.
Ah I wish I had more time to reply to this!

What IS certain though is that finding other sources for fuel is no bad thing, they are non-rewable and will run out!
You are correct. Its ridiculous that there are scientists all over the world that can't speak the truth about global warming for fear of losing funding from their government. The government is almost playing a role like the church during Galileo's time. If anyone proves the powerful group wrong then they are made outcasts and punished.

Going green just happens to be the "thing" these days, which is not a bad thing, but when scientists have to shut their mouthes for fear of losing funding then something isn't right...because the truth should be more important than anything. People are voting for leaders who are "green", votes are important to politicians, if a scientist questions the global warming craze then he is considered "the anti-green" and therefore the politicians can't have anything to do with those scientists, and then the politicians cut the funding. Great system.
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 4th 2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by slickguy55 View Post
You are correct. Its ridiculous that there are scientists all over the world that can't speak the truth about global warming for fear of losing funding from their government. The government is almost playing a role like the church during Galileo's time. If anyone proves the powerful group wrong then they are made outcasts and punished.

Going green just happens to be the "thing" these days, which is not a bad thing, but when scientists have to shut their mouthes for fear of losing funding then something isn't right...because the truth should be more important than anything. People are voting for leaders who are "green", votes are important to politicians, if a scientist questions the global warming craze then he is considered "the anti-green" and therefore the politicians can't have anything to do with those scientists, and then the politicians cut the funding. Great system.
Amazing. Yet more conspirational statements unsupported by evidence.
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
slickguy55 Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
slickguy55's Avatar
 

Posts: 151
Join Date: June 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 4th 2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Of V View Post
Amazing. Yet more conspirational statements unsupported by evidence.
http://americaswatchtower.com/2009/02/15/scientists-are-afraid-to-debate-global-warming-for-fear-of-losing-federal-grants/

http://cofcc.org/2009/02/70-scientists-to-speak-out-against-global-warming-scam/

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...ng-global.html

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislati...al-Warming.htm

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...ming-myth-beck
   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Gixxers rock Offline
should now be "VFRs rock"
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
Gixxers rock's Avatar
 
Age: 31
Location: Calgary

Posts: 392
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 6th 2009, 07:53 PM

I think man helped it along by driving Range Rovers, but isn't something new.


I am the Stig's brother in law.


Race me on Gran Turismo 5 Prologue! My nickname is patrakoffman-64
   
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 7th 2009, 06:34 PM

OK, removing rants about scientists' incapacity to debate contentious subjects (which is something I hate personally, but nothing new and definitely not evidence of any sort) the only piece of "evidence" I could find was a claim that when CO2 levels decreased after 2002, temperatures kept rising - which is interesting considering that I have never heard of a 2002 drop in CO2 levels, which would certainly be a cause for celebration whatever your alliance?
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 7th 2009, 07:43 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008....climatechange

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/124642_warming02.html

It really goes both ways. How about leaving the moral outrage out of it and sticking to debating the facts?


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.

Last edited by Xujhan; December 7th 2009 at 07:48 PM.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 7th 2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Of V View Post
the only piece of "evidence" I could find was a claim that when CO2 levels decreased after 2002, temperatures kept rising - which is interesting considering that I have never heard of a 2002 drop in CO2 levels, which would certainly be a cause for celebration whatever your alliance?
That drop is irrelevant as concentrations have since increased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CompassionateSoul View Post
CO2 concentrations have risen to 387 ppm, when in 2007 the concentrations were at 384 parts per million.
That's for the global atmosphere.
The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5x1018) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.
CO2 at 387ppm makes up 3.02188 x 10^12 kg. So, 3.02188 trillion kg.
That's an increase from 2.996 trillion kg, which is 2.588 billion kg more than two years ago.
I think this is something to take notice of, particularly as CO2 molecules absorb and re-radiate all UV radiation that hit them. Certainly not something to celebrate.

It's best to look at the facts yourself before pass judgement, if you assume a lot of what you read cannot be trusted until you know what's true and what isn't, find our for yourself. There are climate skeptics and climate alarmists (labeled 'doomsayers'), but there is a common ground between the two, it comes down to what is fact, accepted theories and proven theories. Yes, the greenhouse effect is natural, but we are also enhancing it (CO2 levels don't rise that much naturally within such a short period), how much is where the biggest debate lies.


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela


   
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
Marvin Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Name: Marvin
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,576
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 7th 2009, 08:57 PM

I think essentially whatever man's role in global warming is or isn't, we still have to change the way we live. The only danger to the enviroment is not just the rising of the temperature. Look at deforestation. Its making many other species extinct (on a day to day basis, for the record), and making that terrean ruined. Acid rain caused by pollutions damages our ecosystems also. Air pollution, destroying *our* lungs, almost as much as smoking, if you live in a big city. We are nearly out of fossil fuels. We produce far more garbage then we can cope with (and the poorer countries generally suffer more, as we ship it off). Etc, etc.

And in the long run, I dont see any of these being things we really want.

On the Global Warming front, there's evidence its natural, there's evidence that it isnt. From what I've seen, its probably a mix of both, because although temp rising is natural and normal, its not suppose to have been this fast in the past.

Now by no means am I putting forward we should listen to the doomster approach to this (infact, its probably counter productive. Though fear can motivate change, too much causes people to block it out), and I think a lot of the media over exagerate, miss the point, or simply include some 'facts' that aren't facts/twist them (they have been known to), I do feel brushing it all off, is silly and arrogant.
   
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 8th 2009, 11:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadaCraig View Post
...a very interesting article/revelation that just might end up proving that 'man' is NOT - after all - responsible [OR perhaps NEARLY as responsible] for so-called 'Global Warming' as 'we [The world community] have been [mis]lead to believe.
Hi Craig,

Here's the other side of the story:

Quote:
Two weeks ago, hackers stole thousands of emails between a few climate scientists--and then released cherry-picked quotes out of context, absurdly claiming that they question the science behind climate change.

With big money behind it, this misinformation tactic aims to distract the media and the public from the most important conference of our time in Copenhagen
Source: Avaaz via Twitter and Facebook.


Also, it's worth looking around The Guardian website, they have a mini-site dedicated to the current climate summit. This is quite interesting too.


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela


   
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
slickguy55 Offline
Member
Average Joe
***
 
slickguy55's Avatar
 

Posts: 151
Join Date: June 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 10th 2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
You're the one who moved the debate in this direction to begin with. And what is worse... a big corporation using money to influence their views? or our Government, who we should trust, using money to influence their views?

OH no the big corporation is paying lobbyists and spokesmen? That has never happened before. That is way more outrageous than a Government taking on the role of the church circa 1600.
   
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 10th 2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by slickguy55 View Post
You're the one who moved the debate in this direction to begin with. And what is worse... a big corporation using money to influence their views? or our Government, who we should trust, using money to influence their views?

OH no the big corporation is paying lobbyists and spokesmen? That has never happened before. That is way more outrageous than a Government taking on the role of the church circa 1600.
I don't see how it's outrageous at all. Most governments consider global warming to be an important issue, so they fund scientists who are doing useful research into the subject. If global warming were a divisive topic among scientists then perhaps there would be reason to fund scientists attempting to disprove global warming, but among the scientific community it's not divisive. And why should a government waste their precious tax dollars funding research that, to their best knowledge, is dead wrong?

Also I haven't heard of any ritual executions going on in climate science, though perhaps I'm just out of touch.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#28 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 10th 2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan View Post
they fund scientists who are doing useful research into the subject.
That they certainly do, there are also a considerable number of independent scientists who CAN speak out without putting their job on the line, hence why I often quote Dr. James Lovelock, he's a climate science heavyweight, if not a maverick. Although, recently, 1,700 scientists in the UK spoke out...(see below).

In response to these e-mails being leaked and the quotes cherry-picked "The Met Office today (Tuesday 8th now) released temperature records from more than 1,500 climate monitoring stations around the world".

1,700 UK Scientists also signed a statement saying "We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities".


Do you support the hackers and the quotes they picked out? Or the data and 1,700 scientists?


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela


   
  (#29 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 10th 2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CompassionateSoul View Post
That they certainly do, there are also a considerable number of independent scientists who CAN speak out without putting their job on the line, hence why I often quote Dr. James Lovelock, he's a climate science heavyweight, if not a maverick. Although, recently, 1,700 scientists in the UK spoke out...(see below).

In response to these e-mails being leaked and the quotes cherry-picked "The Met Office today (Tuesday 8th now) released temperature records from more than 1,500 climate monitoring stations around the world".

1,700 UK Scientists also signed a statement saying "We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities".


Do you support the hackers and the quotes they picked out? Or the data and 1,700 scientists?
I was waiting for them to do something like that, thanks for the link.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#30 (permalink)) Old
Marvin Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Name: Marvin
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,576
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 04:28 AM

Did you know we could abolish world poverty, and provide world sanitation 5 times over with the money spent on enviromental. Also, as nations get rucher, they produce less pollution, developing countries will produce less pollution as they develop. There is some sensible opposition out there to global warming, but there's also a lot of good points by people who believe in global warming, but don't take the alarmist, doomster view.

BTW a lot of enviromental groups do give bias information too.

I read an interesting article from The Economist, as part of my course reading, it showed how there was a problem, but less then claimed, and that although something needs to be done, the methods governments are using may be more harm then good. It made interestin points.

And Governments are going to fund research from a view supporting global warming due to public opinion, regardless.

Quote:
I'd like to see the hard evidence that proves global warming driven climate change was not the cause of these events.
Surely the task to prove it rests on you? Or the fact that weather happens, and there have been events like heat waves (higher then present day) during the history of mankind.

Quote:
1,700 UK Scientists also signed a statement saying "We, members of the U.K. science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities".
It just says scientist. I'm a psychology undergrad, its a science degree, I'm technically a scientist, particularly once I graduate. What sort of scientists are they? Do they research global warming? The same article mentions authetic claims have been made against the petition. So thats not the best link, and the quote in your post is used pretty biasly.

Now I dont have a strong opinion on it, other then I think fincially things need to be planned better, like education globally, and health care, and clean drinking water. The world is quite near ending yet But it is for some people.
   
  (#31 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 05:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert View Post
Surely the task to prove it rests on you?
Just going to respond to this bit specifically: science isn't really based on hard proof. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable, and by definition anything that is proven isn't. It is up to the party making a claim to provide compelling evidence, and as regards global warming, that's been done. At that point, it's up to the opposition to either provide compelling evidence, or to show why the original evidence doesn't support the theory. And most feel that, in this case, the opposition has failed to do that.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#32 (permalink)) Old
Marvin Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Name: Marvin
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,576
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 11:22 AM

I understand how science works. Really. But apparently the atheists get to use that line in God debates, and suggest it would be held to anything else. and ok, the word prove was just a simple way of saying 'provide evidence for'. I was pretty drunk when I wrote that...

But it is true, most the funding from Governments do go to enviromentalist scientists, considering world governments are spending more on it then worldwide human suffering. Also the second anyone speaks out against mainstream enviromentalism, they seem to be demonised, and accused of twisting truth and selfishly invested.

There was a book by lomborg, who considers himself an enviromentalist, but outlines how organisation do omit info, use wrong info, or simply lie. He used sources of evidence to back himself up using stars actually from places like the UN etc. He also explains how you could economically improve climate change, and the well being of people.
   
  (#33 (permalink)) Old
Xujhan Offline
Resident Atheist
I can't get enough
*********
 
Xujhan's Avatar
 
Name: Fletcher
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,024
Join Date: January 17th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert View Post
I understand how science works. Really. But apparently the atheists get to use that line in God debates, and suggest it would be held to anything else. and ok, the word prove was just a simple way of saying 'provide evidence for'. I was pretty drunk when I wrote that...

But it is true, most the funding from Governments do go to enviromentalist scientists, considering world governments are spending more on it then worldwide human suffering. Also the second anyone speaks out against mainstream enviromentalism, they seem to be demonised, and accused of twisting truth and selfishly invested.

There was a book by lomborg, who considers himself an enviromentalist, but outlines how organisation do omit info, use wrong info, or simply lie. He used sources of evidence to back himself up using stars actually from places like the UN etc. He also explains how you could economically improve climate change, and the well being of people.
Heh, we "the atheists" use that line because religion fails the first criterion of providing any suggestive evidence at all.

I will happily agree that government handling of environmentalism leaves something to be desired, but that's true about the government handling of just about anything. The price we pay for democracy is that the populace at large has to be kept, if not happy, at least slightly below the level of frothing rage. That often means that the ideal solutions we'd all like to see can't get off the ground for lack of public support.


The atoms that make up you and me were born in the hearts of suns many times greater than ours, and in time our atoms will once again reside amongst the stars. Life is but an idle dalliance of the cosmos, frail, and soon forgotten. We have been set adrift in an ocean whose tides we are only beginning to comprehend and with that maturity has come the realization that we are, at least for now, alone. In that loneliness, it falls to us to shine as brightly as the stars from which we came.
  Send a message via MSN to Xujhan  
  (#34 (permalink)) Old
Marvin Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Name: Marvin
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,576
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 03:38 PM

(To me, I think linking hurricanes to humanity is giving us far too much credit at this stage. Weather diasasters are occurant in this world, and I'm pretty sure the weather links like that, are some of the partially exagerrated or fabricated parts of global warming from the Alarmists. I can't source that, but I'm pretty sure I remember learning about it)

I'm aware of politians having to pay attention to the public, but my point was, the way Global Warming is presented to the public often brings on this 'omg we are all going to die!!!!' alarmist view, so instead of having the issues addressed sensibily, and paying attention to the millions of people currently living who are in real need of aid, a lot of things are occuring that are perhaps unhelpful, uneconomically wise, and rushed into. There are a lot of scientists who do believe in Global Warming, but take a much different approach to how it needs to be tackled then say Greenpeace. Also, its worth mentionning, from study of changing people's attitudes, that, yes, some fear can increase the chances of change, but too much fear actually reduces the chance of change, as people then repress, block out or ignore the information as a method of self defense. So as well as the potential risk of taking inappropriate action, the alarmist, doomster approach may be counter productive in getting people to really care. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it seems like a lot of people if asked would say Global Warming is a big issue, but then in their lives there's no change. More has to be done then spweing out scary information.

Also a lot of the issues that people claim are where humans are contributing to Global Warming have more problems then just the temperature raising. For example, consumerism. Unlimited, constant desire and need for more and more, is almost a plague to our society. In the West, you are almost never content, and just want more. Its even kinda misplaced Maslow's Needs Heirarcy, mixing things around. An uncontrolled thirst, particularly one that has been induced by organisations (advertising) has to have negative impacts on more then just the world, and impacts on our mental life. But as far as I can tell, this issue isnt really addressed by enviromental policies. Enviromental policies tend to just tax more in this sort of area, yet people will be willing to pay more, and not change. The USA consumes a ridiculas amount, I think its something like if all the countries in the world were to live like America, we'd need to have 2 more Earths. If such issues could be addressed, it may help aid both a reduction in enviromental change, an increase in aiding those in need, along with a general increase in mental life.

Then there's also the issue that, with technology, and the scientific revolution (I'm not having a go at science, btw), humans have become more and more disconnected with nature. Man sees itself as distinct, and apart from it, so there is a lack of motivation for many to change themselves, particularly if ignoring it causes them short term benefit, because people often do think like that.

Enviromental pyschologists (or some of) suggest in order to really impact on the damage being done, human ideology needs to adjust. Some take into account Buddist philosphies, others talk of Gaia (the spirit of the world, and how we all, as processes are part of this bigger process), and so on.

But I do find it quite appauling that if the £1 trillion Kyoto agreement was implicated in full, its estimated to delay 0.2/0.3 degrees change in temperature by only 6 years compared to if nothing is done, yet such a huge amount of money is behind it, particularly as it probably wont be carried out in full. Just because there is so much e

(By the way, a lot of what I'm saying is to try provoke lateral discussion, because the most interesting, and I think enriching global warming discussions are not just 'Is global warming happening'.)

Last edited by Marvin; December 11th 2009 at 04:04 PM.
   
  (#35 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 05:31 PM

I felt I had to quote on this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert View Post
It just says scientist. I'm a psychology undergrad, its a science degree, I'm technically a scientist, particularly once I graduate. What sort of scientists are they? Do they research global warming? The same article mentions authetic claims have been made against the petition. So thats not the best link, and the quote in your post is used pretty biasly
I'm pretty sure out of those several thousand a good few are climatologists. The thing that really annoys me about the climate change debate is how the doubters have a habit of exaggerating their qualifications in the field. Recently I saw a book by two writers proclaimed as "Professor..." on why global warming is a hoax. I was intrigued so skipped to the bios. Guess who they are? A nutritional researcher and a "leading expert on diabetes". Indeed.

Last edited by Union Of V; December 11th 2009 at 05:47 PM.
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#36 (permalink)) Old
hopefaithlove Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
hopefaithlove's Avatar
 
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Location: United States

Posts: 1,332
Blog Entries: 6
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 08:55 PM

I've never believed that global warming is due to man.

How would they explain the ice age? It's just a warming of the earth instead of freezing.


There is always hope. PM me anytime.
SH Free since 10.20.08
   
  (#37 (permalink)) Old
dancinfool Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
dancinfool's Avatar
 
Age: 29

Posts: 422
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 11th 2009, 11:49 PM

Just to randomly point out (cos I could spend ages writing something but I should probably sleep) the original article doesn't even get the name of the university fully correct. But there you go..
   
  (#38 (permalink)) Old
Member
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
CompassionateSoul's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 346
Blog Entries: 7
Join Date: November 26th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 12th 2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert View Post
Surely the task to prove it rests on you? Or the fact that weather happens, and there have been events like heat waves (higher then present day) during the history of mankind.
I have studied the science and done a lot of research myself, there is no proof I can find, I was merely asking for someone else to provide information on any evidence that would stand up against what I already know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert View Post
It just says scientist. I'm a psychology undergrad, its a science degree, I'm technically a scientist, particularly once I graduate. What sort of scientists are they? Do they research global warming? The same article mentions authetic claims have been made against the petition. So thats not the best link, and the quote in your post is used pretty biasly.
The petition was circulated by the Met Office in the UK - the Uk's national wether service, and a trading fund of the Ministry of Defence. The agency employs a large number of meteorologists, climatologists and research scientists, that would be who made up the majority of the petition.
The quote in my post was a direct quote included in the article, it's what the statement said, there is no bias on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert View Post
...others talk of Gaia (the spirit of the world, and how we all, as processes are part of this bigger process), and so on.
This is quite often a misinterpretation of a relatively new theory, and if you asked these people what Gaia was, they wouldn't be able to answer accurately. Which I think is a big part of the problem, too many people don't understand the science of the climate, atmosphere, or Gaia to be able to make a judgment for themselves. Instead they are fed the arguments of alarmists and deniers, causing a rift in public understanding. For any decent amount of change to happen, the public needs to sway one way or the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefaithlove View Post
How would they explain the ice age?
In short, Gaia (the Earth's system), has three states, a hot state, our current one, and a cold state (an ice age). Gaia shifts into an ice age when the hot state becomes 'too hot'. After an ice age we get periods like the one we are in now, from there it's unknown where it goes, but with the amount of change to the surface of the planet in the last 100 years and changes in atmospheric composition, whatever will happen next, will happen faster than before (faster than naturally) because humans are present in huge numbers.


What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and wiser, that in itself, is worth the fight.

The best way to predict the future is to create it - Peter F. Drucker

The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. - Nelson Mandela



Last edited by CompassionateSoul; December 12th 2009 at 12:33 AM.
   
  (#39 (permalink)) Old
HenryClay Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
HenryClay's Avatar
 
Gender: Male
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 17
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 12th 2009, 04:24 PM

Humans may have contributed to global warming but we certainly did not start it. It is fact that global warming has been around for over 10,000 years.
   
  (#40 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,017
Blog Entries: 22
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: Is it possible that 'man' is NOT responsible for Global Warming after all?! - December 12th 2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryClay View Post
Humans may have contributed to global warming but we certainly did not start it. It is fact that global warming has been around for over 10,000 years.
I think we have to separate natural, predictable climate change and man-made climate explosion. The overall temperature of the planet oscillates slowly, it's a known fact - hence ice ages and such. However recently (relatively recently of course) the temperature has started to rise much rapidly than predicted, so it has to be assumed that there's something else causing it.
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
global, man, responsible, warming

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright ©1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.