Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

I don't think there is enough information to say whether the changes are made made, or part of the natural cycle of the planet. I have a very big distrust of someone who tells me they know exactly that it is caused by mankind and yet can't give me the exact weather next with any accuracy.

Where are you looking for your info?

I usually avoid the conversation threads, but this one is just too much. All these guys who don't even know the research saying that there isn't enough information...

Three big words here: LOOK IT UP. Don't get your info from the news, don't get your info from politicians, look scientific info up.

Look, scientists didn't always believe in global warming. The results from the studies repeated over and over about tons of different aspects of the issue led to scientists say that they are almost certain that global warming is largely caused by human activity. That's why they believe it, not because they're paid to believe it. Have ANY of you ever talked to real climate scientists? You make them sound like scummy used car salesman and assume you know everything about their intents and psyches without having ever even talked to one.
I mean really, who is making money off of this? Are there people really stupid enough to think that Al Gore is the universal leader of all scientists and that he is making money off this so all scientists work for him because it makes money for them, too? Have you ever looked at how ridiculous it is to suggest that people are making money off of this? Until a few years ago, there wasn't even a strong push for green technology, but global warming research is decades old. The green tech industry is struggling to find funding a lot of times and you think they have money to randomly throw at researchers? It was around before there was even a chance of making money off of this. In fact, people stumbled upon their findings as is the case with a lot of important scientific discoveries. A researcher is looking for something completely different and his data gives him new insight.

Who do you think really has investment in the issue? It's the corporations that are huge emitters of CO2. They lose money if policies get stricter, so they're the ones who funnel in money to skew results from pseudo-scientists to say that global warming isn't happening. They're the ones who make or lose money off these results. Scientists get paid either way as long as they are accurate and scientific as judged by a large group of their peers. If you just mistrust science in general and think all scientists are bad so that no scientist can be trusted, then I really don't have the energy to get into that discussion...if you think the point of science is making money or that most of research science is dominated by this (instead of a small group of pseudo scientists, and perhaps the group of actual scientists who develop technology or medicine), then again, I'm not the one to get into that discussion...as someone who's involved in science and interacts with scientists daily, I'll just tell you that you're totally misinformed...

Just sit down and think for yourself for one second instead of parroting things that don't actually make any logical or empirical sense.

You cannot seriously argue that there is no money in pushing the idea of man made global warming. Of course there is how much has the price of lithium went up with the rise of hybrid cars, why do you think there are companies out there installing solar panels or selling carbon credits. You state that corporations control the research and that politically the money is unregulating emissions and the like. This is false politically there is alot of capital in regulations. There is a reason the regulations have made it mandatory to included ethanol on gasoline. Something that has been proven to damage engines, check it out Toyota does not honor the warrenty on engines that contain more than 10 or 15% ethanol in the gas when they are brought in. The reason ethanol is required is because the caucus is in Iowa and the economy of Iowa depends on corn. A politician running for president needs to support ethanol to win Iowa even if they know it does more harm than good. There is potentially much more money in these so calmed 'green energy sources' than there is in oil. And to think that funding is not going to some scientists to "prove" the exsistance of global warming is naive in the same way that thinking the petroleum industry is not funding other research. There is a limited amount of oil whereas the potential for these 'green energy' solutions is not limited. I find it interesting you advise everyone to look for answers yet in the same post say all scientist are in agreement, clearly they are not or we would not be having this discussion. Also you say to ignore the media which has come out overwhelmingly to support the man made global warming theory. Instead urging us to talk to a climatologist, a sample size of one person scares me as then you will then only believe whatever side they are for. Instead I would say research both sides yourself and make your own judgement. Only time will tell on this issue but clearly there is not a clear answer and the debate will continue.

Look, scientists didn't always believe in global warming.

So true, in the 70's they were saying it was global cooling. They were warning about, the coolest temperatures on record and said it wouldnt be long until the next ice age started, those years are their favorite years to compare todays temp with to show the contrast.

It's the corporations that are huge emitters of CO2.

Mother nature is far and away the biggest producer of CO2, through decomposition. She also has things called plants that thrive on CO2 and produce Oxygen, which we need. CO2 levels have been higher in the past, before man, and before industry. I have no problem with lowering pollutant levels, but CO2 is no pollutant, nor a threat.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Mother nature is far and away the biggest producer of CO2, through decomposition. She also has things called plants that thrive on CO2 and produce Oxygen, which we need. CO2 levels have been higher in the past, before man, and before industry. I have no problem with lowering pollutant levels, but CO2 is no pollutant, nor a threat.

Wow, not to be argumentative or anything but you are just plain wrong. Do you remember the Biosphere II experiment when half a dozen people were sealed in a huge airtight chamber for a year? It was intended to replicate all of the major biomes of the planet and was intended to remain in balance, with the plants supplying the oxygen and the animals (including people) providing the CO2. Unfortunately, the O2 levels got severely low and the CO2 levels got too high because they did not take into account in their balance calculations the soil organisms that were also consuming O2 and releasing CO2.

This planet is just a bigger sealed chamber, with finite resources. Huge amounts of CO2 have been sequestered for millennia but are now being released during the burning of petrochemicals. The result is an elevated CO2 level that has dramatically increased since the industrial revolution and it is beyond naive to assume that to be a coincidence.

CO2 is not a pollutant? CO2 affects the pH of the ocean. EVERY biochemical reaction in nature (including your body) is exquisitely dependent upon pH and the elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is decreasing the pH of the ocean. Higher acidity in the ocean is destroying many forms of life in the ocean. Our planet is highly dependent upon what goes on in the ocean and we mess with that at our own peril.

This planet is a sealed chamber. We humans are continuing to reproduce at an exponential rate. Limited resources do not sustain exponential growth forever. A severe crash is coming and there are very few ways to avoid it. We can drastically reduce our population via plague or starvation. We can find a way to reach the stars so that our resources are no longer finite. Alternatively, we can reduce the negative impact that each of us has on the planet. This last option can at least delay, but not eliminate, the inevitable population crash. The more each of us pollutes, the faster that crash will come. Finally, if you don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, try breathing it some time. See how long you consider it to not be a pollutant when that first breath burns your lungs.

Originally Posted by Utopian

if you don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, try breathing it some time. See how long you consider it to not be a pollutant when that first breath burns your lungs.

Plant life does not agree that CO2 is a pollutant.

Originally Posted by heirkb

Where are you looking for your info?

I usually avoid the conversation threads, but this one is just too much. All these guys who don't even know the research saying that there isn't enough information...

Three big words here: LOOK IT UP. Don't get your info from the news, don't get your info from politicians, look scientific info up.

Look, scientists didn't always believe in global warming. The results from the studies repeated over and over about tons of different aspects of the issue led to scientists say that they are almost certain that global warming is largely caused by human activity. That's why they believe it, not because they're paid to believe it. Have ANY of you ever talked to real climate scientists? You make them sound like scummy used car salesman and assume you know everything about their intents and psyches without having ever even talked to one.
I mean really, who is making money off of this? Are there people really stupid enough to think that Al Gore is the universal leader of all scientists and that he is making money off this so all scientists work for him because it makes money for them, too? Have you ever looked at how ridiculous it is to suggest that people are making money off of this? Until a few years ago, there wasn't even a strong push for green technology, but global warming research is decades old. The green tech industry is struggling to find funding a lot of times and you think they have money to randomly throw at researchers? It was around before there was even a chance of making money off of this. In fact, people stumbled upon their findings as is the case with a lot of important scientific discoveries. A researcher is looking for something completely different and his data gives him new insight.

Who do you think really has investment in the issue? It's the corporations that are huge emitters of CO2. They lose money if policies get stricter, so they're the ones who funnel in money to skew results from pseudo-scientists to say that global warming isn't happening. They're the ones who make or lose money off these results. Scientists get paid either way as long as they are accurate and scientific as judged by a large group of their peers. If you just mistrust science in general and think all scientists are bad so that no scientist can be trusted, then I really don't have the energy to get into that discussion...if you think the point of science is making money or that most of research science is dominated by this (instead of a small group of pseudo scientists, and perhaps the group of actual scientists who develop technology or medicine), then again, I'm not the one to get into that discussion...as someone who's involved in science and interacts with scientists daily, I'll just tell you that you're totally misinformed...

Just sit down and think for yourself for one second instead of parroting things that don't actually make any logical or empirical sense.

My Father in law is a very well thought of scientist in his field. At least before he retired. He was also the one who sought out Government funding for whatever project they were working on. As I understand it he often had to address the Senate of the U S (or whatever Government body was responsible for funding his projects) to seek this funding. It was explained to me that often times he had to figure out and play to whatever side of the issue the Senate members were on of a certain project he was working on in a way that would guarantee funding. Based on this I would say that the funding entity plays a large part in what may be the final result of certain scientific projects. That is assuming of course that said scientists wish to continue receiving funds from said funding entities.

Originally Posted by Utopian

Wow, not to be argumentative or anything but you are just plain wrong. ...

At least until scientists find another tidbit that proves him right.

My point being that you can't possibly say that and still play like you have an open mind. Science is always making discoveries that disprove previous theories and discoveries that appeared to prove what scientists thought was correct then and will continue this path ad infinitum.

=Utopian;684193]Wow, not to be argumentative or anything but you are just plain wrong. Do you remember the Biosphere II experiment when half a dozen people were sealed in a huge airtight chamber for a year? It was intended to replicate all of the major biomes of the planet and was intended to remain in balance, with the plants supplying the oxygen and the animals (including people) providing the CO2. Unfortunately, the O2 levels got severely low and the CO2 levels got too high because they did not take into account in their balance calculations the soil organisms that were also consuming O2 and releasing CO2.

This seems to confirm my post, nature produces most C02, the fact that nature uses O inorder to release some of that C02 is irrelevent. Also the fact that those scientists didnt account for certain organisms leads me to believe that it is possible today that other scientists also forget to take all things into account. Some have been caught picking and choosing numbers that support their hypothesis' and discard anything to the contrary. Like the IPCC. Here is an interesting read about C02 levels: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

Finally, if you don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, try breathing it some time. See how long you consider it to not be a pollutant when that first breath burns your lungs.

So a pollutant is everything that we cant breathe in 100% concentrations? Like Oxygen, and Nitrogen. 400 ppm is a long way from there any how.

To the rest of your post 'science' has long been trying to blame our use of oil for our impending demise, even though oil is the driving force of our technicalogical advancement the last 100 plus years. Oil was blamed for global cooling in the 70's, and then global heating in the late 90's, now its just blamed for both and they call it global climate change.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

To the rest of your post 'science' has long been trying to blame our use of oil for our impending demise, even though oil is the driving force of our technicalogical advancement the last 100 plus years. Oil was blamed for global cooling in the 70's, and then global heating in the late 90's, now its just blamed for both and they call it global climate change.

Don't you understand Jason? Any handy excuse to prove themselves right.