# Climate change



## stratos

This is an interesting article on how Canada, especially at the federal level, is not addressing the realty of climate change:

Canada, Harper need a 'reality check' on global warming: report


----------



## macframalama

does anyone find it odd that it has been so cold and its june 13th today, i hope it means a later summer but seems to me its taking longer to get hott and then also longer to cool down now a days,.


----------



## Foxtail

Last year was the same if I remember correctly. No warm weather until after june...

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk 2


----------



## J'sRacing

Climate change is real, but not because of man-made emissions. Over the last 150 years we've had a 0.8º change in temperature. And the amount of scientists that have dissent towards this hoax is increasing. 

Don't forget this whole climate change because of CO2 was fabricated by Al Gore, and i don't know about you, but i question Al Gore's motives. In addition this whole idea of being "green" is profitable. Look at how many people have bought LED light bulbs or energy saving light bulbs to replace their plain jane incandescent light bulbs. Not to mention all the other pieces of technology and products that have been sold to replace functioning "non green" products.


----------



## macframalama

yeah similiar to the yk2 bug lol, everything is a money grab , wont be long till it all goes out the window anyways, look at the smart meter scam , i dont know one person who hasnt gotten those put in and then have there bill dramatically increase


----------



## Tiwaz

Remember the late Seventies , when they talked about the coming ice age? LOL its always something.


----------



## TomC

J'sRacing said:


> Don't forget this whole climate change because of CO2 was fabricated by Al Gore.


 Not so. Whatever you think of the issue, Gore was just the messenger. He brought it to public attention in the U.S. while a politician, but to say he came up with the idea is completely mistaken.


----------



## J'sRacing

macframalama said:


> yeah similiar to the yk2 bug lol, everything is a money grab , wont be long till it all goes out the window anyways, look at the smart meter scam , i dont know one person who hasnt gotten those put in and then have there bill dramatically increase


yea the smart meter is definitely a scam. I don't like the idea that someone can remotely alter the numbers in the meter. We've actually complained about this to BC hydro. We've installed these new plug in meters at every household power outlet which monitors total energy consumed. 
The results: our collected data is lower than what the smart meter says outside. 
BC hydro's response: we'll come and take a look at it. It's been 4 months...and zip, nothing, zilch. No one has come to take a look.



Tiwaz said:


> Remember the late Seventies , when they talked about the coming ice age? LOL its always something.


Exactly, which is why i'm so upset about people saying, spewing, abusing and in general tarnishing science.



TomC said:


> Not so. Whatever you think of the issue, Gore was just the messenger. He brought it to public attention in the U.S. while a politician, but to say he came up with the idea is completely mistaken.


I think we have a misunderstanding with phrasing here. To say that Al Gore fabricated the issue, is to say that he made it more "dangerous" than it is. Well other than the fact that man-made co2 is causing climate change is utter BS.

Look up Climate-gate scandals and you'll see what i mean. Many scientists that backed the US's statement on global warming were paid money to abuse and modify the data to make it more presentable. And this is not hear say or speculation. Some of those scientists actually admitted to doing it.


----------



## stratos

J'sRacing said:


> Climate change is real, but not because of man-made emissions. Over the last 150 years we've had a 0.8º change in temperature.


I appreciate your skepticism on the issue. I think we all should be skeptical.

The big issue is whether CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are only correlative or causative regarding higher global temperatures.

Looking at ice core samples of trapped gas going back 10,000's of years, along with other ways to measure atmospheric CO2 levels from the past, there is no doubt that there is a correlation between higher CO2 and higher global temperatures in the past. The causative argument (hypothesis) rests on CO2 acting as a green house gas that leads to the trapping of heat on the surface of the earth. Put the proven correlation of higher CO2 levels and higher historical global temperatures alongside the hypothesis of CO2 acting as a green house gas and you have the science behind global warming.

Climate scientists are afraid of positive "feedback loops" that could lead to run away CO2 atmospheric emissions and dramatic global warming. The arctic tundra is beginning to melt (fact) and huge huge huge amounts of frozen methane (which is another greenhouse gas) risk release to the atmosphere. Once that process gets going we CAN NOT STOP it. Similarly, as the arctic sea ice melts more and more, less and less heat energy from the sun is reflected into space. This leads to ever more heat being absorbed by the sea and earth. This feeds back (hence the feedback loop) to the methane gas release in the tundra etc. etc. We risk a nightmare scenario of run away temperatures.

Please attack any parts of the above outline that you disagree with.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> I appreciate your skepticism on the issue. I think we all should be skeptical.
> 
> The big issue is whether CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are only correlative or causative regarding higher global temperatures.
> 
> Looking at ice core samples of trapped gas going back 10,000's of years, along with other ways to measure atmospheric CO2 levels from the past, there is no doubt that there is a correlation between higher CO2 and higher global temperatures in the past. The causative argument (hypothesis) rests on CO2 acting as a green house gas that leads to the trapping of heat on the surface of the earth. Put the proven correlation of higher CO2 levels and higher historical global temperatures alongside the hypothesis of CO2 acting as a green house gas and you have the science behind global warming.
> 
> Climate scientists are afraid of positive "feedback loops" that could lead to run away CO2 atmospheric emissions and dramatic global warming. The arctic tundra is beginning to melt (fact) and huge huge huge amounts of frozen methane (which is another greenhouse gas) risk release to the atmosphere. Once that process gets going we CAN NOT STOP it. Similarly, as the arctic sea ice melts more and more, less and less heat energy from the sun is reflected into space. This leads to ever more heat being absorbed by the sea and earth. This feeds back (hence the feedback loop) to the methane gas release in the tundra etc. etc. We risk a nightmare scenario of run away temperatures.
> 
> Please attack any parts of the above outline that you disagree with.


Alright, I wouldn't go as far as to calling it an attack though; I'll choose to go by an educated debate:

Looking at ice core samples of trapped gas going back 10,000's of years is not exactly the most accurate way. The Earth has been around for 4,540,000,000 years ± 1% and looking at 10,000 years even 50,000 years is really not an accurate way to look at the cycle of Earth's temperatures. In addition levels of CO2 in the ice is not an indication of temperature change as MANY climateologists as well as plain jane scientists and physicists have said: climate change as many factors. And what i'm saying and what many scientists are saying is that CO2 is not a main contributor or factor or even a factor at all. Now here is where this global warming hoax falls apart. The amount of CO2 that we release into the atmosphere is so little in terms of PPM, that its negligible. Don't forget adding CO2 into the atmosphere also promotes other things, like plant growth etc. Like our aquariums, CO2 encourages plant growth: read Tropical Comeback: Can New Growth Save the Amazon Rainforest? - SPIEGEL ONLINE 
Similar things are occuring around the world, they are finding trees are healthier and growing differently. You also have to remember that the earth is not a closed eco system, if it's shifting itself one way, it will balance itself out another way. We humans are just too insignificant in this world to shift things too far. A good example of this is actually the pine beetles in BC. We are getting warmer winters that aren't killing them, thus killing our trees, but at the same time its also given other plant species longer grow periods in the year.

IT IS JUST A NATURAL PHENOMENON. You know, like the last ice age, or the big extinction that took out the dinos. I highly doubt the dinos had carbon dioxide issues that caused them to go extinct, or that the wooly mammoths killed themselves by pollution. You see how much of a hoax this global warming non sense is?

Climate scientists are afraid of being out of a job, or out of funding from a government that wants to hear that we're all going to die if we don't spend our money. The arctic tundra is beginning to melt, yes is a fact. But it's also natural. Its due to something called arctic oscillation:The Arctic Oscillation and Arctic Weather Patterns

Like i said, we are insignificant. If the Earth wants to release its storage of methane, then so be it. But don't go around thinking we must of done something in order for the Earth to react. You forget that the earth has a "live" core. It will do what ever it wants to and will balance it self out:

As more and more ice is melted, there will be more and more water, and because of the then higher temperatures, water will evaporate more. And the amount of energy absorbed by the earth-atmosphere system over the entire globe in a year is equal to the amount emitted by the system. Solar energy is radiated into this system, where it is absorbed, reflected, or scattered. The radiation absorbed by the earth is conducted, convected, or evaporated into the atmosphere. The energy in the atmosphere is absorbed from solar radiation and sensible and latent heat from the earth. Energy is returned from earth and atmosphere to space, either immediately or eventually, through one of these processes. So if you really think about it, i know it may be hard for you to grasp the entirety of the situation, seeing that all you do is read media-hype; i'll put it simply: There will be no global warming crisis, we, men are not the cause of global warming and global warming is a hoax.


----------



## effox

J'sRacing said:


> Alright, I wouldn't go as far as to calling it an attack though... So if you really think about it, i know it may be hard for you to grasp the entirety of the situation, _*seeing that all you do is read media-hype; i'll put it simply*_: There will be no global warming crisis, we, men are not the cause of global warming and global warming is a hoax.


That was an attack. Tread carefully.

With that said, whether I'm right or wrong, climate change is natural and has been going on since before man. That's a simple fact. As far as we contributing, I doubt we're helping, but I don't believe we're the arbitrary cause of this climate change.


----------



## stratos

I disagree that humans are insignificant in relation to the natural environment, I disagree that climate science is a "hoax", which carries negative connotations. At worst I think it could be a "mistaken hypothesis", since that is the nature of science: examine, hypothesize, test; then accept or reject hypothesis. The problem with global warming is that once the data is conclusive it would be too late and humankind would basically be screwed. Thus, for the sake of my kids and grandkids, I would rather be safe than sorry. We are of course all novices debating a topic for which none of us is really educated about. We are left to our web links (like everyone else), our life experiences, and our critical thinking skills.

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for a respectful discussion/debate.


----------



## Nicole

Took a course in the winter and touched on this topic.
Global warming is not considered a fact yet, but climate change is a fact.
You cannot say humans had absolutely zero contributions, yet you can't say it is only because of humans.
Whatever it is, if each person threw away the "not in my own yard" attitude and took some responsibility, we can make the Earth a healthier place to live in. 
We do after all, share the same planet.


----------



## Momobobo

Hardly true...to say humans cause climate change is false of course. But to say we have no impact? That's just being ignorant. Its not the change the scientists are worried about but the rate of which is happening. Living things around the world can adapt, but not at this rate. Yes, you can't wipe off life from this earth but why should we have to restart because our corperations and politicians only care about the green that is money? 

Are you saying the fact you could go for a job in a heavy industrialized city such as Hong Kong and come back with black lungs normal or healthy?
Coral reefs are going to be destroyed very soon by the rapidly rising temperature (and high levels of dissolved CO2) along with that all the fish, inverterbrates, and all other lifeforms that rely on it to survive.
Then the sharks go hungry, the whole ocean ecosystems goes sick and dies off because of nothing rooting out bad genes and health.
Then the birds starve, etc etc.

Rhe only animals that would survive outside of a zoo are raccoons, cockroaches, and crows. I highly doubt anybody would like to see that.


----------



## J'sRacing

effox said:


> That was an attack. Tread carefully.
> 
> With that said, whether I'm right or wrong, climate change is natural and has been going on since before man. That's a simple fact. As far as we contributing, I doubt we're helping, but I don't believe we're the arbitrary cause of this climate change.


I apologize. I should of phrased that more carefully.



stratos said:


> I disagree that humans are insignificant in relation to the natural environment, I disagree that climate science is a "hoax", which carries negative connotations. At worst I think it could be a "mistaken hypothesis", since that is the nature of science: examine, hypothesize, test; then accept or reject hypothesis. The problem with global warming is that once the data is conclusive it would be too late and humankind would basically be screwed. Thus, for the sake of my kids and grandkids, I would rather be safe than sorry. We are of course all novices debating a topic for which none of us is really educated about. We are left to our web links (like everyone else), our life experiences, and our critical thinking skills.
> 
> Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Thanks for a respectful discussion/debate.


I'm not saying that PURE climate science is a hoax, but the amount of money and unseen behind the scene corruption is appalling. When science (Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts) is manipulated like it was in the many Climate-Gate Scandals; Scientists, physicists and I start to lose respect for these people. Actually like i've said earlier, I am a bio-chem student as well as a researcher. And i can tell you that from the data i've seen in the reports i've read, man-made CO2 being the main cause is 100% complete utter hippo poop.

Oh and i think for an educated debate, we should distance ourselves from the usage of wikipedia  its not the most compelling set of evidence nor the most accurate 



PSpades said:


> Took a course in the winter and touched on this topic.
> Global warming is not considered a fact yet, but climate change is a fact.
> You cannot say humans had absolutely zero contributions, yet you can't say it is only because of humans.
> Whatever it is, if each person threw away the "not in my own yard" attitude and took some responsibility, we can make the Earth a healthier place to live in.
> We do after all, share the same planet.


I agree, i've said it time and time again, climate change is real and global warming is hippo doo doo. You're right, you can't say humans have had absolutely zero contributions, but i'd say our contributions are negligible at best. 
Another issue i have with the current green movement is actually, believe it or not: recycling.
There are many reports with actual numbers as well as countless studies that show recycling actually does more harm than good.
So I actually do not recycle.



Momobobo said:


> Hardly true...to say humans cause climate change is false of course. But to say we have no impact? That's just being ignorant. Its not the change the scientists are worried about but the rate of which is happening. Living things around the world can adapt, but not at this rate. Yes, you can't wipe off life from this earth but why should we have to restart because our corperations and politicians only care about the green that is money?
> 
> Are you saying the fact you could go for a job in a heavy industrialized city such as Hong Kong and come back with black lungs normal or healthy?
> Coral reefs are going to be destroyed very soon by the rapidly rising temperature (and high levels of dissolved CO2) along with that all the fish, inverterbrates, and all other lifeforms that rely on it to survive.
> Then the sharks go hungry, the whole ocean ecosystems goes sick and dies off because of nothing rooting out bad genes and health.
> Then the birds starve, etc etc.
> 
> Rhe only animals that would survive outside of a zoo are raccoons, cockroaches, and crows. I highly doubt anybody would like to see that.


What rate? at the rate of 0.8 degree per 150 years? That is an astoundingly slow rate of change like Dr. Ivor Giaever said. 
WE ARE NOT GOING TO RESTART, as per Darwin: survival of the fittest and i believe that humans are smart enough to shift and transition appropriately. 
Oh and by the way, being green is actually profitable.

Yes i am actually, i frequently travel in Hong Kong and stay there for periods at times. You do realize that Hong Kong isn't a city based on heavy industry right? If that is what you're getting at. Hong Kong is mainly a tertiary economy. Hong Kong is only "polluted" because of the high population density. Which is natural (think if you shoved 100 tetras into a 5 gallon tank) Oh and just for a final nail in the coffin for your idea. Hong Kong has a higher average life expectancy than Canada  82.7 vs 80.7 according to the World Bank in 2010.
As far as the coral reefs being destroyed by the "rapidly rising tempertures". Possibly, but i believe we will find that the reefs will just retreat deeper into the center of the water. But this will take many many years to observe, and i'm not a marine biologist.

And again, the Earth will balance it self out, you gotta stop looking at it as a closed eco system.

Let's assume that Earth's will is to raise temperatures: the reefs die, animals that rely only on the reefs will die, this is called extinction which happens in nature NORMALLY without human intervention. Then only the animals that don't rely on reefs will survive and maybe lets say for example a particular fish's main predator relies on the reefs goes extinct. Then that fish that originally had a natural predator will no longer be limited in numbers will exponentially increase, and perhaps feed other marine animals and the food chain continues. So you see? Its not like our aquariums where if you add more Y, then X will happen. In the real world, in an un-enclosed eco system, if you add more Y then maybe X or maybe Z will happen.


----------



## Momobobo

Ai, you are right. I forgot the book I read (on HK/China) is quite old (1994).
Even a single degree change for nature is a lot. A degree for a coral reef is enough to bleach it dead.
Being green is profitable yes, but to the gas companies and the politicians and scientists paid for by the gas companies?
Of course extinction is natural, but extinction rate has increased dramtically since humans became the apex organism. 
Yes, we aren't a species that can destroy the circle of life, but do we really need to throw it out of the loop for nothing but personal gain?

While the Earth may not be a true closed eco system, it is the only rockball we can live on. I am less worried about climate change, which is inevitable at this point, and more worried about nuclear destruction. Which throws all the cards out the window


----------



## J'sRacing

Momobobo said:


> Ai, you are right. I forgot the book I read (on HK/China) is quite old (1994).
> Even a single degree change for nature is a lot. A degree for a coral reef is enough to bleach it dead.
> Being green is profitable yes, but to the gas companies and the politicians and scientists paid for by the gas companies?
> Of course extinction is natural, but extinction rate has increased dramtically since humans became the apex organism.
> Yes, we aren't a species that can destroy the circle of life, but do we really need to throw it out of the loop for nothing but personal gain?
> 
> While the Earth may not be a true closed eco system, it is the only rockball we can live on. I am less worried about climate change, which is inevitable at this point, and more worried about nuclear destruction. Which throws all the cards out the window


Perhaps, 1 degree is alot , but no planet will ever have a stable temperature, the face of mars has also heated up recently at the same base rate as earth. I think this can suggest other things. 
the funny thing about the gas companies is that quite frankly: i don't think they care what the media says. You and i will buy and use gas without doubt for the rest of our lives.

Well don't just tell me it has increased dramatically. Can you give a statistical number? As far as i know, which is not a lot by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of new species that we humans have not discovered. Maybe those species are the replacements for the extinct animals that we've said good bye to.

Like i said, i highly doubt we can even throw it out of loop with our "co2 emissions".

worried about nuclear destruction? i'm not: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian


----------



## kmc5

Hi i had a SFU chemistry project. The claim that al Gore relates the relationship of increase CO2 correlates to the increase temperature may not be true. A new model is being researched that reference the temperature increase is newly viewed as a result (delta change) between the warming factors and cooling factors. More research is focused on the components of the cooling factor. We know that CO2 is a major warming factor, but you maybe wondering what are the cooling factors? Well it is the particles from incomplete combustion like airplane jet steams that we see in the sky. These particle interact and binds with the moister or in the cloud. As a result, the clouds acts as a giant mirror that reflects sun rays back to space. In fact within the 50 yrs, data from pan evaporation revealed that the earth is receiving less sun light. Even tho skin cancer is rising, it only relates to the earth atmosphere and ozone strength. Plants are receiving less sun "energy" for photosynthesis. A documentary called "Global Dimming" explains more details. One important concept it state is the point of no return. Right now if you didn't notice even with our better technogy for cleaner combustion that produce less particle in the air, global temperature continues to rise. Why? Because the clouds are not reflecting solar energy back into space so the earth warms up. If we cut all CO2 emission, we maybe still doomed as we do not know the largest of the two factors. For example: the warming factor is 200 degrees and the cooling is -180 than the global temperature we feel is 20 degrees. As we decrease our pollution production, less particle, the cooling factor is weaken to counter the warming effects therefore the temperature continues to increase despite our effort to be green...


----------



## effox

kmc5 said:


> Hi i had a SFU chemistry project. The claim that al Gore relates the relationship of increase CO2 correlates to the increase temperature may not be true. A new model is being researched that reference the temperature increase is newly viewed as a result (delta change) between the warming factors and cooling factors. More research is focused on the components of the cooling factor. We know that CO2 is a major warming factor, but you maybe wondering what are the cooling factors? Well it is the particles from incomplete combustion like airplane jet steams that we see in the sky. These particle interact and binds with the moister or in the cloud. As a result, the clouds acts as a giant mirror that reflects sun rays back to space. In fact within the 50 yrs, data from pan evaporation revealed that the earth is receiving less sun light. Even tho skin cancer is rising, it only relates to the earth atmosphere and ozone strength. Plants are receiving less sun "energy" for photosynthesis. A documentary called "Global Dimming" explains more details. One important concept it state is the point of no return. Right now if you didn't notice even with our better technogy for cleaner combustion that produce less particle in the air, global temperature continues to rise. Why? Because the clouds are not reflecting solar energy back into space so the earth warms up. If we cut all CO2 emission, we maybe still doomed as we do not know the largest of the two factors. For example: the warming factor is 200 degrees and the cooling is -180 than the global temperature we feel is 20 degrees. As we decrease our pollution production, less particle, the cooling factor is weaken to counter the warming effects therefore the temperature continues to increase despite our effort to be green...


Is this why I'm seeing long lasting contrails in the "X"mosphere for over a decade now? I only notice this with high flyers spewing out thin contrails that turn into long wide unfluffy clouds, as opposed to commercial flights or fighter jets that have short lasting contrails that I'm accustomed to.


----------



## Momobobo

J'sRacing said:


> Perhaps, 1 degree is alot , but no planet will ever have a stable temperature, the face of mars has also heated up recently at the same base rate as earth. I think this can suggest other things.
> the funny thing about the gas companies is that quite frankly: i don't think they care what the media says. You and i will buy and use gas without doubt for the rest of our lives.
> 
> Well don't just tell me it has increased dramatically. Can you give a statistical number? As far as i know, which is not a lot by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of new species that we humans have not discovered. Maybe those species are the replacements for the extinct animals that we've said good bye to.
> 
> Like i said, i highly doubt we can even throw it out of loop with our "co2 emissions".
> 
> worried about nuclear destruction? i'm not: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian


Does it even require a number? Just look around you. How many animals are now endangered species when they were once thriving? Polarbears, Cheetahs, Koala bears, Beaver, Bald Eagle etc. All these animals are the symbols of countries and yet they are on the road to extinction (verge of extinction) because the goverment won't bother to move a few million from a multi billion military budget. The horrible thing is most of these undiscovered will never be discovered as they will be extinct before we do. (Not neccesarily by climate change alone of course)

"New plant and animal species are emerging, University of Minnesota ecology professor David Tilman says, but not nearly fast enough to make up for the toll caused by human activity.

"That's sort of a 1 million to 4 million year process, and yet we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster," he says."

I cannot be the only person that is at least a tad unnerved by the fact that America has enough Nuclear arms (WMDs =\=Clean energy source) to basically wipe life off the land?
Climate change alone won't end life on this planet, but I have a feeling eventually the impact the human race will have on this planet will.


----------



## J'sRacing

Yes it does. Animals will go extinct whether at an accelerated rate or not. All we can do is observe and admire the remaining specimens. Or as my mother would say "let go"
There are various reasons as to why these animals are going extinct, including arctic oscillation, climate change, exploitation or natural invasion from other species. And no its not because the government isn't moving a few million from a multibillion military budget. In fact i sure hope they don't, cause obviously preserving animals are more important than say investing in our kids or our healthcare system right?

How exactly can this ecology professor even calculate the amount of new species? Considering the fact that humans don't even know 99% of the species in the deeper sea, or the fact that we humans don't know all the insect species or other aerial birds that live in non populated islands or mountains. Exactly. No one knows. 

I highly disagree with "we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster" What is the natural rate? There is no natural rate, as Earth itself has proven time and time again. Look at the wipe out of the dinos, or the last ice age or even the multiple ice ages before. 

The total global nuclear arsenal is about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5,000 megatons (5,000 million tons of TNT). 

An air burst (detonating a bomb above the surface) would produce far more damage and death via radioactive fallout than one detonating at ground level. 

A single 100 megaton air burst would be enough to cause a nuclear winter and pollute the Earth for many many years. Theoretically, a 100 megaton bomb detonated below ground could produce a massive earthquake and the constant explosions of a full blown nuclear war may also cause numerous earthquakes around the globe. But this would not destroy the world nor all human life. 

Globally there are not enough nuclear bombs to completely kill every human. The Tsar Bomb (largest bomb ever detonated) had a fallout of 1000 square kilometres, and was 50 MT. The world is close to 150 million square kilometres, and the human population covers close to 18 million square kilometres. 

Therefore to get a rough idea we can say hypothetically that the 5000 megatones of nuclear warheads was 100 Tsar Bombs (the same value in megatons). If these bombs were detonated their total radioactive fallout would cover 100,000 square kilometres. 

It may be surprising to hear that this covers less than 1% of the area that the human population covers, which should give a general idea of the miniscule size of impact this would have on the total world's surface. Therefore it can be shown that we do not have the capacity at the moment to destory the world with nuclear warheads. 

However, there are factors we have overlooked, which include: 
- Tsar Bomb has a very small radioactive fallout in comparison with its megatone value 
- Nuclear wardheads can be assumed to target densly populated locations, and 
- Nuclear winter which would result in the radioactive fallout 

To put curiousty to rest, even if we replaced our Tsar Bomb equation with nuclear warheads that had a higher radioactive yield to fulfill the 5000 megatons global nuclear arsenal we would still not come close to the amount of radioactive fallout required to cover the area the human population covers, let alone destroy the world. 

If nuclear warheads were targeted at densly populated locations it would increase the fatalities of a nuclear war, however this would still not wipe out humanity, let alone destroy the world. 

Nuclear winter can in lamer terms be contrasted with the ice age. The ice age did not destory the world, and did not wipe out all life, therefore neither would nuclear winter. Humanity is extremley resilient, and although many of the world's population die due to starvation if they did not die from the initial nuclear war or radiation, life will find a way. 

So no...i'm not worried.


----------



## cpool

Here is quote from Al Gor:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gor

Al Gor has also testified to congress that he stands to make over a billion dollers if his cap an trade system is used. 

It isn't hard to see where motives on the "Green" side are coming from.

I simply cannot believe that .001% of extra CO2 will make a hill of beans of a difference. No way no how.


----------



## J'sRacing

cpool said:


> Here is quote from Al Gor:
> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gor
> 
> Al Gor has also testified to congress that he stands to make over a billion dollers if his cap an trade system is used.
> 
> It isn't hard to see where motives on the "Green" side are coming from.
> 
> I simply cannot believe that .001% of extra CO2 will make a hill of beans of a difference. No way no how.


The biggest problem with that, is the fact that he is creating a fake crisis in the hopes to make big money.
It just so happens that we are releasing CO2, but the underlying cause is much greater than our "pollution"


----------



## J'sRacing

Articles Tagged "Dan Pangburn" | Climate Realists

Interesting website


----------



## Ursus sapien

_"Don't forget this whole climate change because of CO2 was fabricated by Al Gore..."_
That's just a silly assertion. The issue was on the table long before "An Inconvenient Truth" and the evidence is strong to convince over 70% of scientists who consider the issue. The majority of scientists who disagree work for vested interests or conservative think-tanks.

NYTimes
World Bank
NASA
Wikipedia: Scientific opinion...

and just for fun... Made Wade 'Who Cares About This Planet?'


----------



## J'sRacing

Ursus sapien said:


> _"Don't forget this whole climate change because of CO2 was fabricated by Al Gore..."_
> That's just a silly assertion. The issue was on the table long before "An Inconvenient Truth" and the evidence is strong to convince over 70% of scientists who consider the issue. The majority of scientists who disagree work for vested interests or conservative think-tanks.
> 
> NYTimes
> World Bank
> NASA
> Wikipedia: Scientific opinion...
> 
> and just for fun... Made Wade 'Who Cares About This Planet?'


If you actually think the IPCC work for the conservative think tanks...you're sorely misinformed.
I'm assuming you didn't actually read any of what i typed. Cause only 40 scientists (including climatelogists, physicists etc) signed for their initial global warming paper. Later over 1000 scientists signed a petition and more to revoke that so called scientific paper. To add salt to the wound, some of those 40 scientists were found to have manipulated and distorted the data (look up climate-gate scandal)

The NYtimes is a heavily heavily edited paper. In fact its a business, its written and presented in a way to sell. One easy and effective way to sell is to appeal to the ordinary joe blow. IE YOU GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO READ. The references i have are to scientific papers.

The world bank? really? For any written material or any paper really, bias will be there. But the world bank is not considered a great resource in terms of research work, even in the research world. Ask me how i know.

NASA is the most interesting. Please refer to my previous discussion on the authenticity of the NASA reports. In short: the scientists that worked on the research for the main thesis, spoke out to public about forging and rigging data.

And how many times must i say. WIKIPEDIA is not a good source for anything.


----------



## Ursus sapien

J'sRacing said:


> If you actually think the IPCC work for the conservative think tanks...you're sorely misinformed.
> I'm assuming you didn't actually read any of what i typed. Cause only 40 scientists (including climatelogists, physicists etc) signed for their initial global warming paper. Later over 1000 scientists signed a petition and more to revoke that so called scientific paper. To add salt to the wound, some of those 40 scientists were found to have manipulated and distorted the data (look up climate-gate scandal)
> 
> The NYtimes is a heavily heavily edited paper. In fact its a business, its written and presented in a way to sell. One easy and effective way to sell is to appeal to the ordinary joe blow. IE YOU GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO READ. The references i have are to scientific papers.
> 
> The world bank? really? For any written material or any paper really, bias will be there. But the world bank is not considered a great resource in terms of research work, even in the research world. Ask me how i know.
> 
> NASA is the most interesting. Please refer to my previous discussion on the authenticity of the NASA reports. In short: the scientists that worked on the research for the main thesis, spoke out to public about forging and rigging data.
> 
> And how many times must i say. WIKIPEDIA is not a good source for anything.


I have no idea how many times you've said anything. The quality of Wiki pages varies depending on page and author.

Discover Blogs/ Bad Astronomy: NASA criticism refuted
Discover Blogs/ Bad Astronomy: Climategate was manufactured 
NASA (yes, I know, you don't find them credible): Global Climate Change info page
Skeptical Science: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Phys Org: Waiting on climate is 'escapism': top UN scientist 
Phys Org: Climate skeptic physicist Richard Muller, director Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, changes his mind 
Phys Org: get ready for extreme weather 
Phys Org: burden of proof 
Phys Org: humans primary cause of warming oceans 
Phys Org: changes in Antarctic sea ice 
Phys Org: carbon effects climate 
Phys Org: carbon's role in climate: 
Phys Org: US Dept. of Energy, biggest carbon jump on record:
Scientific American: the physical science behind climate change

for fun:
Scientific American: John Rennie's 7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense 
Scientific American: NCSE picks fight with deniers


----------



## J'sRacing

Well like i've said, its hard to change the opinions of others, this is no different, there is so much contrasting evidence. So while some people go protect the Earth. I'm going to go drive my car and enjoy life.


----------



## stratos

Seems like some prominent climate skeptics are changing their minds: Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds | Environment | The Guardian

Meanwhile, statistical analyses look to be the way to convince the remaining skeptics (over time) :

Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact' - World - CBC News


----------



## J'sRacing

Cool story bro. 

Prove to me that the rest of the IPCC back climate change now please.


----------



## stratos

The IPCC scientists who are skeptics make world news when they change their minds and accept the theory behind human caused climate change. I have not heard of any big name scientists going the other way and becoming climate skeptics lately, have you?


----------



## Momobobo

At some point you must realize defeat...not everybody will agree on anything.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> The IPCC scientists who are skeptics make world news when they change their minds and accept the theory behind human caused climate change. I have not heard of any big name scientists going the other way and becoming climate skeptics lately, have you?


You realize the IPCC are the initial ones that backed climate change right? They were the key members that wrote that paper for Mr.Gore. Well only a minor portion of them anyways. I linked you to the current state of the IPCC's thoughts on the matter a few pages back. As far as big name scientists: i've also told and linked you to several physics nobel prize winners that have changed their opinion. It seems to me that you haven't actually read anything of what i've said.


----------



## stratos

J'sRacing said:


> You realize the IPCC are the initial ones that backed climate change right? They were the key members that wrote that paper for Mr.Gore. Well only a minor portion of them anyways. I linked you to the current state of the IPCC's thoughts on the matter a few pages back. As far as big name scientists: i've also told and linked you to several physics nobel prize winners that have changed their opinion. It seems to me that you haven't actually read anything of what i've said.


I've read through some of your links, but many of them are a few years old. I am most interested in current thought on the subject of global warming. Currently scientists on the IPCC who are skeptical of humans being the cause of global warming (but not of global warming itself) continue to change their opinions (such as Prof Richard Muller), which makes global news.

The current trend is moving towards more and more climate skeptics accepting that humans are the cause of global warming. I don't think you can deny that.


----------



## Foxtail

Honestly, your statement is quite bold. Humans are the cause of global warming? Global warming is a natural occurance. The question is, do humans have an affect on the rate of global warming? which I am sure we do but is it detrimental to life on earth? I don't think so because I believe in evolution. Life always finds a way... Just look at the most hostile places on earth, life seems to thrive. I find most of your statements quite high and mighty. I think you would be better off saying something like "this is what I BELIEVE is happening" not "this IS what is happening, and you all have to agree... Heres the "proof" and then linking to some news report, that says some proff changed his or her OPINION... It's about tact, if you say things the right way, you can change someones opinion but you have to make them think it was their idea... Not forced.

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk 2


----------



## stratos

> CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: *Humans are almost entirely the cause.*


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

Keep in mind this is a major climate skeptic we are talking about. For him to change his opinion so completely is remarkable, which is why it is world news.

However, the professor goes on to say:



> It's a scientist's duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed.


I think it is the speculation and exaggeration that causes the problems.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all
> 
> Keep in mind this is a major climate skeptic we are talking about. For him to change his opinion so completely is remarkable, which is why it is world news.
> 
> However, the professor goes on to say:
> 
> I think it is the speculation and exaggeration that causes the problems.


I actually don't believe in what Dr.Muller is saying for a few things: 
His credentials are below those of the people i linked and quoted. 
Secondly if he thinks that 250 years is enough to monitor Earth's trend he is sorely mistaken. 
The Earth is estimated to be 4,500,000,000 years old. We have access to 250 of those years. If you can do the math, you should realize that we have 0.00000005% of the data.

Being a major climate skeptic doesn't make you any more believable. Being a major climate skeptic with meaningful research and credentials does. Its like how Al Gore was vice president, but does that mean i should believe him because hes a major player in US politics? No, because his environmentalism bs is all nice and everything from the surface, but once you realize the economics involved: you'll notice that this is more a business than anything.


----------



## stratos

> *The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change
> 
> By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy - August 2012*
> The greatest barrier to public recognition of human-made climate change is probably the natural variability of local climate. How can a person discern long-term climate change, given the notorious variability of local weather and climate from day to day and year to year?
> 
> The question is important because actions to stem emissions of gases that cause global warming are unlikely until the public appreciates the significance of global warming and perceives that it will have unacceptable consequences. Thus when nature seemingly provides evidence of climate change it needs to be examined objectively by the public, as well as by scientists.
> 
> Therefore it was disappointing that most early media reports on the heat wave, widespread drought, and intense forest fires in the United States in 2012 did not mention or examine the potential connection between these climate events and global warming. Is this reticence justified?
> 
> In a new paper (Hansen et al., 2012a), we conclude that such reticence is not justified. The paper attempts to illustrate the data in ways that properly account for climate variability yet are understandable to the public.


NASA GISS: Science Brief: The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> NASA GISS: Science Brief: The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change


This is the exact same type of gibberish you link to every time i point out some facts. Takes a real man to google that up man. 
Again WE as HUMANS only know *0.00000005%* of Earth's natural temperature curve, i don't think any scientist that their has own right to speak would base a judgement on that.

In fact, i challenge you to the fact that you don't even understand those climate graphs and natural variation diagrams. But i do, and what i've been trying to say as well as many other scientists out there is that your X-AXIS is simply not enough to tell the rest of the story. It's like having a rope that is segmented in many sections, all of which are different coloured. Now cut that rope, hold the middle piece (which we'll arbitrarily call the past 250 years). With that piece of rope can you tell me the color of the next piece of rope?


----------



## stratos

Watch the ad hominem attacks J'sRacing, no need for that. I notice you have been needlessly rude and insulting to others on occasion.

I cut and paste links to "expert opinion" to rebut your points. I am no climate scientist and so quote those who are. Climate skeptics like you are fighting against a mounting body of evidence in favour of the IPCC and its conclusions. Prominent members of your own skeptic camp are jumping ship and accepting the facts - human co2 emissions stand as the most likely cause of global warming.

I challenged you several posts ago to name a prominent scientist who has recently jumped from supporting the conclusions of the IPCC to being a skeptic. Can you do it?


----------



## AWW

I don't get arguments like this. 

Not many people around would agree that climate change like this is for the better. I would go as far as saying its a fact that humans have contributed to it. Regardless, if we like the world as it is right now, would it not make sense to smarten up and do everything to stop it? Arguing about how much of an impact we are making is pointless! Let the scientists figure that out.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

J'sRacing, 

keep your posts civil (i.e. no more "takes a real man" type comments) or you WILL "enjoy" another time out from the site (i.e. temporary ban). Re-read your posts and edit out any insults before you hit Post. OK?

As long as the debates remain civil and informative, rather than degrading into personal insults and nastiness, we will keep these types of debate threads open. If any member is unable to control their temper when posting on these types of "political" debate threads, don't bother opening them and posting. We do NOT want to shut down every thread like this because it turns into a mudslinging contest. That is not good for the site or the community-spirit we try to promote on BCA.

Thanks


----------



## stratos

AWW said:


> I don't get arguments like this.
> 
> Not many people around would agree that climate change like this is for the better. I would go as far as saying its a fact that humans have contributed to it. Regardless, if we like the world as it is right now, would it not make sense to smarten up and do everything to stop it? Arguing about how much of an impact we are making is pointless! Let the scientists figure that out.


I agree with you completely. Which is why I support investment in public transit, promotion of cycle commuting and infrastructure, am opposed to more carbon pipelines, and generally support government policy and regulation to wean us all off the addiction to BIG OIL. Call this a progressive view.

The problem is that there are reactionaries, people who are opposed to calls for change, support the current BIG OIL status quo. It is these attitudes that need to be understood and changed via education and public dialogue like what is happening here on this forum.


----------



## J'sRacing

stratos said:


> Watch the ad hominem attacks J'sRacing, no need for that. I notice you have been needlessly rude and insulting to others on occasion.
> 
> I cut and paste links to "expert opinion" to rebut your points. I am no climate scientist and so quote those who are. Climate skeptics like you are fighting against a mounting body of evidence in favour of the IPCC and its conclusions. Prominent members of your own skeptic camp are jumping ship and accepting the facts - human co2 emissions stand as the most likely cause of global warming.
> 
> I challenged you several posts ago to name a prominent scientist who has recently jumped from supporting the conclusions of the IPCC to being a skeptic. Can you do it?


Sorry i'm allergic to being fed non sense from media..... anyways

You cut and paste links and you gloss over exactly what i've said. It's almost like a citizen asking a politician on their weak points.

? I'm not a climate skeptic, i just don't take in what the media wants to me listen to and live my life by. The weather is changing, but like foxtail said is it due to HUMANS? or NATURAL CAUSES.

You also seem to have forgotten:
THE BIGGEST BACKER OF CLIMATE CHANGE WAS THE IPCC. 
They published their assessment in 2007 under close negotiation with Al Gore and the Government of the US. That is how all the carbon taxation scheme even began. Do you see how this is a business now? Is it seeping through to you yet?

Now in 2011, the IPCC changed their stance on the whole situation, saying that there is little to no correlation between the Earth warming up and the so called "dangerous" levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

So no i won't take up your challenge to name a prominent scientist who has recently jumped from supporting the conclusions of the IPCC to being a skeptic, but rather i present to you: a panel of over 1000 scientists. 
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

I suppose thats more than the single Richard Muller you can name isn't it?


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

As far as this debate goes, here's my take on the situation.

Even if you don't believe that our CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases have made a dent in the atmospheric amount, what is undeniable is that the cutting down of mos to the world's forests and polluting the oceans have HURT the planet's natural defenses against those emissions. If most of the trees are gone and the ocean is no longer able to keep up with absorbing these pollutants, then something has to give. Most of the world's landmasses used to be covered with trees and open grasslands. These plants helped absorb CO and clean the air. Now we've deforested most of Europe, most of North America, and the tropical rain forests in S.E. Asia and South America are being clear cut at a highly unsustainable rate (and these countries don't tend to practice silviculture - replanting) which means our contributions to the global atmosphere is no longer being dealt with by those long-gone forests and other natural recyclers and absorbers.

We are now approaching the 7 BILLION mark in global population. 7 BILLION humans, the most destructive and resource-consuming species in the history of the planet, must have SOME negative impact on the world's environment and thus contribute to the climate change problem. NOT all the blame, but at least some. Look at all the statistics you want. What I'm saying is simple COMMON SENSE. 

Yes, the world has gone through several climate change cycles such as the various Ice Ages over its long history. What human activity from 7 BILLION people polluting and consuming resources and emitting wastes in various forms is doing is speeding up the Climate Change timetable. WE are the only ones capable of cutting down whole forests, building massive factories, burning fossil fuels, driving all sorts of emission producing vehicles, etc. So WE must take some of the blame for these negative changes. We can't blame the gorillas or ants.

Have you ever considered, J'sRacing that your love for fast, emission-producing cars may be causing some bias in your refusal to accept that humans have contributed negatively to the environmental problems we are all seeing and experience nowadays? Perhaps if you were J'sSailboating or J'sSkateboarding you would look at the situation differently. 

I know that having studied and worked for years as a salmon farmer, I am always quick to defend salmon farming against its critics. So I can see the psychology behind your comments. It probably feels like Stratos is calling your love of fast cars evil and bad for the planet.

Anthony


----------



## J'sRacing

Actually contrary to common belief, i actually love people that drive hybrids or electric vehicles. If they can't find joy in burning away petrol, smoking rubber, i'll do their portion for them.

And as far as common sense goes, have you thought about scale? 7 billion humans is MINOR. If we all stood together side by side on one continent, we wouldn't even be visible to the eye in space.

But as far as defending the "skeptics" because i love motorsports? Thats a huge comparison and relation that you're trying to draw. Had i been J'sSailboating or J'sSkateBoarding, i'd be saying the exact same thing. Its not that i don't love sports or don't participate in sports. What i'm believing is that on the grand scale of things humans are still tiny. I have a hard time believing that the extra 0.00000X ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will shift our climate. 

In addition your view that the world's trees are all being chopped down is highly skewed. According to Lomborg and few other leading boreal forest scientists, We aren't actually losing that many trees, if any.


----------



## Elle

> If we all stood together side by side on one continent, we wouldn't even be visible to the eye in space.


It's not the physical space we take up that's the problem, it's the disproportionate amount of resources we consume and the amount of energy and destruction expended to provide those, especially in a first world lifestyle. Yeah, we could all live in Texas, but we'd still starve pretty quickly if that's all the space we were able to use for food and water as well.


----------



## IceBlue

Just wait till the tundra starts to melt. Huge carbon bank. No turning back we are on the road to nowhere. All northern communities will be devistated. Bridges, highways structures of all kinds will buckle, erosion of massive scale will result speading up the shifting of riverbeds wiping out bridge abutments and long stretches of highways often the only access to many towns, moving of goods to resourse areas will be hampered dur to ice roads being too weak to support loads. resources may need to be flown in, maybe derigibles, watch the price of fuel rise significantly.

Not sure we can blame the entire situation on fossil fuels but one would think there should be a bent toward emmision reduction, if for no other reason than to save money. I heard Hong Kong set some kind of record last weak for pollution, asfor you J it's a free country but you have to admit you can't sit in a garage with a car running and expect to survive. Well we very well may have reached the tipping point on our big garage we call earth. They are finding pollutants all over, under on top of the earth. We need to get unbiased facts, not act on impulse.


----------



## J'sRacing

I guess arguing with facts is well recepted here: lets try something new.



Elle said:


> It's not the physical space we take up that's the problem, it's the disproportionate amount of resources we consume and the amount of energy and destruction expended to provide those, especially in a first world lifestyle. Yeah, we could all live in Texas, but we'd still starve pretty quickly if that's all the space we were able to use for food and water as well.


Okay. lets all go live like the africans. There no carbon, no nothing. 
I see you don't understand my post in the first place. I was talking about scale, the amount of humans are actually quite minor in comparison to a lot of things like trees, marine life etc. The resources we consume may seem like alot, but in reality the only resource that we are consuming hard is oil.



IceBlue said:


> Just wait till the tundra starts to melt. Huge carbon bank. No turning back we are on the road to nowhere. All northern communities will be devistated. Bridges, highways structures of all kinds will buckle, erosion of massive scale will result speading up the shifting of riverbeds wiping out bridge abutments and long stretches of highways often the only access to many towns, moving of goods to resourse areas will be hampered dur to ice roads being too weak to support loads. resources may need to be flown in, maybe derigibles, watch the price of fuel rise significantly.
> 
> Not sure we can blame the entire situation on fossil fuels but one would think there should be a bent toward emmision reduction, if for no other reason than to save money. I heard Hong Kong set some kind of record last weak for pollution, asfor you J it's a free country but you have to admit you can't sit in a garage with a car running and expect to survive. Well we very well may have reached the tipping point on our big garage we call earth. They are finding pollutants all over, under on top of the earth. We need to get unbiased facts, not act on impulse.


It's posts like these that are misleading...we are NOT entering an era of doom. "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario is not happening. A superstorm pumped up on carbon dioxide like East German female Olympians pumped up on steroids will not engulf the globe. Tornadoes will not pound Los Angeles. Tidal waves will not destroy Manhattan. Subtropical Asia will not be buried by blizzards. Oh and obviously Hong Kong is in severe trouble now...they only have the world's second longest life span...that's all...

All the northern communities account for maybe 0.000000000000000000000000001% of the world's population? Easily evacuated and moved.

Actually while i was doing some reading i found these lines interesting:
"When a heat wave occurs, the alarmists blame it on global warming. When a cold snap occurs, the alarmists blame this, too, on global warming.

And if the weather neither cools nor warms, the alarmists can blame that, too, on global warming, as everybody knows the weather is always changing.

The alarmists and their sychophants in the media chant the mantra, "a consensus of scientists" believe human activity is causing catastrophic climate change.

But who are those scientists? Not the scientists who contributed to the International Panel on Climate Change reports, since they were not asked to endorse the "summary for policymakers" that claims a link exists between human activities and climate change.

Thousands of scientists worldwide -- an overwhelming consensus, it could easily be argued -- have rejected the alarmist's global warming theory. More than 17,000 of them, including dozens of Nobel laureates, have signed a petition saying no convincing scientific evidence supports the theory of catastrophic global warming.

You can read the petition for yourself at .

And what of the supposed evidence of global warming? Computer models, whose programs are written by the global warming alarmists themselves, predictably foretell future warming. But we know those computer models are wrong because they inflate estimates of human greenhouse gas emissions and have "fudge factors" larger than the effect they claim to find. According to these computer models, the planet should already be several degrees hotter than it is.

Polar ice caps, predicted to melt due to global warming (and, according to Hollywood's "teachable moment," triggering the next ice age), have neither grown nor shrunk during the many decades since man began tracking them.

Sea level has risen slowly ever since the last ice age, long before mankind could have been a factor.

Ground-based temperature readings, which alarmists quote every year, do show a warming trend, but not when corrected for the "heat island effect" of roads, buildings, and appliances in cities.

Heat sensors in rural areas show no warming. Satellites, which measure the entirety of the planet's surface and are immune to the localized false warming indications of urban heat islands, show no global warming trend.

Most recent and unbiased scientific research indicates that temperature change caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will be moderate, perhaps 1 degree Celsius in the next century; most of the warming will occur at night and during the winter; and higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (which plant life needs to thrive and survive) will lead to a greening of the planet that will enhance global food production."


----------



## macframalama

once again , politics, religion and personal beliefs cant be argued on here without it turning into a pissing contest , bottom line guys everyone is entitled to there own opinions, beliefs,and theories regarding this stuff and it isnt your job to convince the other party after all were just a bunch of fish nerds , you guys alienate one another on here and for what??? even if one of you is right long term and on a global level YOUR opinions wont matter unless someone with your views can be elected , PERIOD, 

Stop fighting agree to dis agree and move on...


jeez guys its summer , lighten up besides were all gonna die long before the world ends anyways
look at the earth like a loaf of bread , human beings are like mold, before long it is inevitable, either we exhaust what this loaf has to offer and we die or some third party tosses us out in the can ... ie asteroid, global warming, world wars, ice age, planet of the apes whatever...


----------



## J'sRacing

macframalama said:


> once again , politics, religion and personal beliefs cant be argued on here without it turning into a pissing contest , bottom line guys everyone is entitled to there own opinions, beliefs,and theories regarding this stuff and it isnt your job to convince the other party after all were just a bunch of fish nerds , you guys alienate one another on here and for what??? even if one of you is right long term and on a global level YOUR opinions wont matter unless someone with your views can be elected , PERIOD,
> 
> Stop fighting agree to dis agree and move on...
> 
> jeez guys its summer , lighten up besides were all gonna die long before the world ends anyways
> look at the earth like a loaf of bread , human beings are like mold, before long it is inevitable, either we exhaust what this loaf has to offer and we die or some third party tosses us out in the can ... ie asteroid, global warming, world wars, ice age, planet of the apes whatever...


Whatever  
I'm still gonna do some awesome burn outs before this summer ends! oh and drink beer while doing so


----------



## Dragonfish Canada

If you want to know what kind of thinking (or lack of) that contributes to where we find ourselves, review this old thread from about 10 years ago. Note the denial by some of climate change. Note the refusal to accept logic. Note the refusal to take on personal accountability or responsibility to try and make the world a better place. Really quite sad.  On a more positive note, maybe we can start to cobble together the civic and political will to actually change the way we live in and with nature. Otherwise we're doomed Daphne Bramham: Batten down the hatches, the worst is yet to come


----------

