Global Warming an illusion? [LINK]

[ServerGenius]

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...5CW8 5GWRGVqw

enjoy

[DaddyHalbucks]

Global warming exists, but the real question is whether it is *man-made* or just part of the *natural* cycles of hot and cold that happen over the millennia.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Forget the "we told you so...." shit - just thank (insert Deity here) that the USA have finally got it.

[ServerGenius]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Global warming exists, but the real question is whether it is *man-made* or just part of the *natural* cycles of hot and cold that happen over the millennia.

read the article

[Dollarmansteve]

I think global climate volatility has gotten all tangled up with the layman, populist term 'global warming'.

Similar 'crowding-in' effects are seen in the stock market all the time - when uneducated laymen start taking out loans to buy the latest hot stock and then lose their shirt.

We are seeing a similar 'crowding-in' effect with the science behind climate volatility - every uneducated laymen is developing an opinion and this same populist mass of people is perpetuating catch-phrases and misinformation.

Im not saying that people should not be concerned with the Global climate - but one must keep their objectivity - because the mass spreads information based on fear and ignorance with little regard for level headed thought.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

I think global climate volatility has gotten all tangled up with the layman, populist term 'global warming'.

Similar 'crowding-in' effects are seen in the stock market all the time - when uneducated laymen start taking out loans to buy the latest hot stock and then lose their shirt.

We are seeing a similar 'crowding-in' effect with the science behind climate volatility - every uneducated laymen is developing an opinion and this same populist mass of people is perpetuating catch-phrases and misinformation.

Im not saying that people should not be concerned with the Global climate - but one must keep their objectivity - because the mass spreads information based on fear and ignorance with little regard for level headed thought.

I have to agree in some respects - that is a trend.

Then at what point do you say - well, this is more than that?

Is there a point where you say its "50/50 among the mad scientists now" we should trust 'X'?

It seems to me that even the idiot 'Bush' has conceded that there may be a problem.

It amazes me that you Americans will bitch and moan about how much you dont trust your goverment and at the same time feed off all the shit you are fed every day.

[stickyfingerz]

I wonder if the .7 degrees has less to do with emissions, and more to do with billions of miles of concrete and blacktop and buildings that were not there 100 years ago... hmmm. Has the temperature in the atmosphere changed at all I wonder?

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by damian2001

It amazes me that you Americans will bitch and moan about how much you dont trust your goverment and at the same time feed off all the shit you are fed every day.

I assume you are speaking in the general, since I am Canadian

It is obvious that there are positive changes that society can make regarding the environment. Its like smokine cigarettes - 0 cigarettes is better than 1, and riding a bike to work is better for the planet than driving.

The point of contention is the causal connection between human actions and climate volatility. And, believe it or not, there is considerable contention around the causes of "Global Warming" - most notable "the greenhouse effect". Correclations to not imply causation - but try telling that to Al Gore or Joe World Citizen who just heard Tom Brokaw or a bunch of UN scientists tell him to be scared about "Global Warming"

Fear drives economies - Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, Global Warming.. what better way to really drive the world economy than get everyone scared about something that can potentially effect every human on the planet (and is perceived as 'neutral').

Dont discount the political and economic incentives that drive populist opinion.

[ServerGenius]

it's very simple, it's an undeniable fact that burning fosil fuels damages our
environment. The last 100 years we have burned insane amounts, before we had
cars, trains, planes, factories we didn't do this so it's not that hard to imagine
that we humans have caused quite effect on the natural trend.

So yes our climate changes because of natural reasons, but whoever believes
that we humans haven't speeded up and worsened this natural trend should
get his head examined. To understand this you don't need scientist, all it requires is a little common sense. I realise that's for a bunch of people on GFY
too much asked. You can't blaim them for it either....it's a waste of energy to
even try to explain it any further so therefor I won't

[Dirty Dane]

Well...as long you will not starv and get vitamins, have enough water, not live at the coast or risky places where tropical diseases will appear, don't eat fish, and if you hate wild animals and poor people... then you have nothing to fear.

[ServerGenius]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I wonder if the .7 degrees has less to do with emissions, and more to do with billions of miles of concrete and blacktop and buildings that were not there 100 years ago... hmmm. Has the temperature in the atmosphere changed at all I wonder?

no matter what way you twist it, it's human induced. wether it's cars, structures, breathing in and out or farting. Human activity has an effect
on our climate........carbon oxide, nitro oxides, cfk's, carbon mono oxide
are worse than concrete used in structures, try to inhale fosil fuel gasses
and you'll notice pretty damn fast that above statement is not factual

[Nookster]

Well that was a shocker. I learned that shit like 10 years ago. Funny how it takes at least 10 years for the rest of the world to catch up with scientific study.

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Well...as long you will not starv and get vitamins, have enough water, not live at the coast or risky places where tropical diseases will appear, don't eat fish, and if you hate wild animals and poor people... then you have nothing to fear.

You seem very sure of your speculations - in fact, they seem like internalized beliefs rather than speculations.

I'll say it again - positive changes in society towards the environment are necessary, and we've come a long way in the last 25 years in making changes in a positive direction. No amount of fear-mongering is going to improve the quality of our lives or the lives of future populations.

The main challenges arise in the developing world, eg China and India where massive populations and rapid industrialization without the political will (or even logistical means) to control the environmental degredation exist.

I'm going to err on the side of optimism and say that bringing these issues to the fore, even though they create an over-reation amongst the masses, is a good thing. There is no negative argument for making environmentally sound decisions in our society so Im all for it. I am not a fan of politicized science however since it is inherently un-scientific.

[psili]

I wonder how the naysayers spent their $10,000 from ExxonMobile.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...004399,00.html

[ServerGenius]

anyway no matter what you believe is causing this shit, it would be quite stupid to ignore the results of these changes in our climate. All that's important that first everybody takes whatever measures are necesary to protect our countries
for the consequences of this and perhaps it would be a good thing if we try to figure out ways to either slow it down. Can't hurt to give it a try coz it's less
expensive than constantly adapting our protective measures for the results of
these changes.

A lot is needed anyway coz at the current rate of oil consumptions we need alternetives anyway coz in case you haven't noticed we're running out of oil
pretty soon unless you believe that that's an april fools joke aswell.

Of course the oil industry already has great solutions and replacements available but obviously nobody will start selling them before they've sold
the last drop of oil they can find. From a business perspective you can't blame
them for that either.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

I assume you are speaking in the general, since I am Canadian

It is obvious that there are positive changes that society can make regarding the environment. Its like smokine cigarettes - 0 cigarettes is better than 1, and riding a bike to work is better for the planet than driving.

The point of contention is the causal connection between human actions and climate volatility. And, believe it or not, there is considerable contention around the causes of "Global Warming" - most notable "the greenhouse effect". Correclations to not imply causation - but try telling that to Al Gore or Joe World Citizen who just heard Tom Brokaw or a bunch of UN scientists tell him to be scared about "Global Warming"

Fear drives economies - Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, Global Warming.. what better way to really drive the world economy than get everyone scared about something that can potentially effect every human on the planet (and is perceived as 'neutral').

Dont discount the political and economic incentives that drive populist opinion.

lol - There is only one thing that annoys me more than American's - its bloody Canadians who buy into that shit.

Do you think that yours/or mine local Green MP is a secret Nazi?

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by damian2001

lol - There is only one thing that annoys me more than American's - its bloody Canadians who buy into that shit.

Do you think that yours/or mine local Green MP is a secret Nazi?

Not at all, in fact if you read what I actually wrote and not what you wanted to read, you'll notice that Im quite moderate on the issue and I support environmentally conscious living.

I'm sorry if you are having difficulty pigeon-holing me into your pre-existing social contructs.

Im also sorry to inform you that it is possible to be politically neutral on a topic and not brainwashed by either sides' propaganda and yet still agree with the fundamental result.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

You seem very sure of your speculations - in fact, they seem like internalized beliefs rather than speculations.

Its not my words, I read it from the report. Though, I think its not only pollution that will bring the problems, but also the expanding population. More people = more pollution = more people will suffer from it. The animals, on the other hand, will decrease, the pessimist number is with +5 celcius degrees change next 100 years, 15-40% of all species will totally dissappear. Thats already happening, thats a fact.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by ServerGenius

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...5CW8 5GWRGVqw
enjoy

Why do you live below sea level?

[Drake]

There is no question temperaturs are changing. What does it all mean and what's causing it, I don't know.

Did anybody watch Larry King a few days ago where he had 4 panelists on?

Professor Richard S. Lindzen, an M.I.T. professor of atmospheric science, and economist Julian Morris pretty much owned Bill Nye "the science guy" and the other panelist. Though I can't confirm almost anything that was said on the program because I'm not a scientist.

[LadyMischief]

Covered the topic in another thread. Read and be informed ;)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cd20bed2f6&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...eeec46d1fc&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...2b95c45dcf&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...de085af353&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...60aa332f1f&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...9eeb015777&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...7f1dee479f&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...59a5c7f723&k=0

[Dollarmansteve]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

Covered the topic in another thread. Read and be informed ;)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cd20bed2f6&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...eeec46d1fc&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...2b95c45dcf&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...de085af353&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...60aa332f1f&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...9eeb015777&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...7f1dee479f&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...59a5c7f723&k=0

In my experience people only enjoy reading stuff that enforces their existing beliefs - anything else is written off as some politically-slanted op piece