In response to all the global warming threads, who thinks its a myth, or true?

[3Hummer]

DO you think global warming is a myth or true???? And if you dont mind not being anonymous tell us why! ALl opinions welcome

[Mr_Pat]

I voted myth BUT the fact is global warming has been happening from the time of the last ice age. Itc a cycle. The earth has warmed and cooled countless times.

Its a myth that its are fault...

[DRTYFN]

All of this alarmist bullsh*t is Al Gore's fault. Gore is an lying imbecile.

[Sewie]

Originally Posted by Mr_Pat

the fact is global warming has been happening from the time of the last ice age. Itc a cycle. The earth has warmed and cooled countless times.

Its a myth that its are fault...

Exactly.

[wpage]

Climate change is cyclic and related to other factors like polar creep.

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

Isn't your REAL QUESTION ...

DO YOU THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

or

IS IT A NATURAL OCCURANCE THAT HAPPENS EVERY XXXXX YEARS ?

[mikejr]

Originally Posted by RubHer Yellow Ducky

Isn't your REAL QUESTION ...

DO YOU THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY MAN

or

IS IT A NATURAL OCCURANCE THAT HAPPENS EVERY XXXXX YEARS ?

You hit the nail on the head. Do I feel its caused by man. No. There was a video link that was posted on here that powerfully refuted that humans are the cause of it. They attributed it to solar activity. Was a very good video. I feel its a natural thing that happens every so often...everything goes in cycles....

if you are looking to get funding for a project....just tie it to global warming.....so if you want study the wear pattern of the wheel bearings on an H2, tie it to global warming and you will get large amounts of funding!

[star]

I've seen many chat rooms filled with questions such as these and the resident people continue to dispute anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Let me ask what you do for a living so that I can tell you how to do your job better, how to analyze your data better and tell you where you're judgment is faulty. Sounds silly, huh? So let's chat away about the feasibility of climate change and how moronic the majority of climate scientists are. Certainly we are equipped to intelligently pick apart their data and arrive at a much more practical, comfortable prediction that we can live with.

One part of why we exist on this planet is an hospitable atmosphere. It doesn't matter how you look at it, taking all the carbon that's been sequestered in the ground over millions of years and pumping it into our atmosphere will create an inbalance and have consequences. Whether or not those consequences are of importance to you is another matter. Based on the nature of humanity thus far, and how everything is valued by profit only, I'm guessing we will continue to conduct ourselves in the same manner (no matter the rate of extinction) until we don't have food on our table due to loss of arable land or drought, and there is a migration from coastal areas to the degree that our comfortable living has been disrupted.

My local news network had a segment about global warming. There were climate scientists that were explaining the realism of climate change and then one gentleman that "debunked" their data. This individual that provided the debunking is a party that receives a large amount of funding from oil companies. So when a prior poster states that we should "follow the money", I would concur.

Due to the fact that oil is a finite resource, and that there are many other developing nations that require vast amounts of this limited resource, and that there is another human being born every second on this planet.......do we not have reasons other than climate change to worry about the degree, and for what reasons, we use this limited resource? Would it not be better to prepare for a future of lesser quantities of this resource? It is a certainty that we will be confronted with this position and we'd better be prepared. Our entire agricultural base relies on sound philosophies/practices concerning oil.

[deserth3]

Actually crude oil is a renewable resource. We are just using it faster than nature can create it.
Crude oil is also a poison to the earth. Where it came to the surface it would kill all animal and plant life.
So if you look at this way we are doing the earth a favor.

Global warming is real. But not for the reasons Al Gore and all his fellow tree huggers would like you to think. RYD is correct.

[Sewie]

Originally Posted by star

One part of why we exist on this planet is an hospitable atmosphere.

True. And I'll bet the dinosaurs believed they would always roam the planet. One of the things that gets me in the "global warming" debate is the arrogant belief that the human species (or any species for that matter) is meant to inhabit this planet for all eternity. And the even more arrogant belief that we actually have any control over that.

[star]

Originally Posted by Sewie

True. And I'll bet the dinosaurs believed they would always roam the planet. One of the things that gets me in the "global warming" debate is the arrogant belief that the human species (or any species for that matter) is meant to inhabit this planet for all eternity. And the even more arrogant belief that we actually have any control over that.

I'm not sure what your argument here is, if that is even your position. If you're saying that we'll go extinct anyway so why bother, I can agree w/ you on the first part. If nothing else kills us, the lack of our sun will when it nears the end of it's life span (if we're still around then, which is doubtable).

Regarding our arrogance - that's what rules humanity. We, since our existence, believe we can control, amend, harness, dictate nature's directive and in the end it costs us billions and billions of dollars and typically we end up having to try to right our wrongs and put nature back as it was before our interference. Damming of water, and the redirection of water, is a great example of this. These acts kill off our wetlands that help to cease flooding of our homes and act as buffers against severe weather. How much money are we pumping into the Everglades because of the destruction we've caused there? Arrogance is what got us into this mess. Ceasing to mess up our atmosphere would indicate to me that we've become more humbled in our approach - not more arrogant. That's exactly why I'm sure we'll continue to conduct ourselves as we've always done, with arrogance. It seems to be more embedded in our nature.

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine. The rest of us will just have to contend with a collapsing agricultural scenario as we chose not to conserve our oil. 6 Billion people doesn't really create a sustainable picture. We're already in trouble with the viability of our seafood food source.

[3Hummer]

bump

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

I think someone posted on here before about this situation and they blamed it on beef cattle in the rainforest or something like that...

I ate steak for dinner...

[KenP]

Haha! Star is a liberally educated enviro-troll.

I'll read his/her posts because they're not inflaming, just wrong.

[star]

Originally Posted by Hummer Aficionado_VT

I think someone posted on here before about this situation and they blamed it on beef cattle in the rainforest or something like that...

I ate steak for dinner...

Brazil has currently lost 38% of it's rainforest for the purposes of cattle grazing. You wouldn't think this to be funny if you knew the dynamic of this systems and how they benefit us and how we actually require that they remain in tact for a multitude of reasons. A quarter of our medicines are derived from plants that reside in rainforests and only something like 1% of these plants have been tested for such purposes. Also, rainforests act to regulate weather patterns. They help to prohibit drought, desertification and act as carbon sinks.

The cattle industry is one of the most destructive forms of our consumption as the raising of beef clears an abundance of land (as you can see in the above paragraph). Cattle raising also requires an immense amount of water irrigation (2,500 gallons of water to raise 1 pound of meat). How we manage this industry is not very sustainable. Here's a link.

http://www.duke.edu/web/planv/realities.html

For Ken's benefit, I can see why I may be considered a troll but I voted for my Republican Congressman twice. One doesn't have to be a liberal to understand the necessity of our environment and how it relates to the requirements of our very existence.

[KenP]

I had steak last night.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine. The rest of us will just have to contend with a collapsing agricultural scenario as we chose not to conserve our oil. 6 Billion people doesn't really create a sustainable picture. We're already in trouble with the viability of our seafood food source.

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

[KenP]

Thanks Marine. Who'd have thought the environment goes through cycles? Amazing stuff. Really, just amazing.

I hope star reads that.

Now I want to talk about cows more.

How much methane to they put out each year?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by KenP

Thanks Marine. Who'd have thought the environment goes through cycles? Amazing stuff. Really, just amazing.

I hope star reads that.

Now I want to talk about cows more.

How much methane to they put out each year?

If I recall, they produce a lot of methane in Scandanavia. Not sure why there specifically. Oh wait, that's mooses: http://www.elcovaforums.com/forums/s...401#post424401

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

If we don't change the manner and degree to which we use our resources, we will suffer consequences. You don't need to understand science for a realization of this. Water shortages and the impending collapse of our seafood supply are two examples that are already present. My position is that notwithstanding the cause of climate change, actions should be taken to halt the problems that are realized from the overuse of our resources.

We lay people can muse about whether or not the fact that the majority of climate scientists are correct as they try to enlighten us that humans are, in fact, contributing to a warming planet. It doesn't matter. Our consumption, along with the increasing consumption of developing countries, will not be sustainable. The results of this are already present.

And DDT. That's just bad. Enviro-whackos got this one right. This compound placed species on extinction watch and caused serious population declines in others. Most of these species were birds, which help clear our environment of these pesky insects. Is it more logical to retain healthy bird/bat populations to control these pests or advocate the use of a harmful compound? As any harmful compound is used, the pest species evolve increased resistance until the compound is nary effective and another toxic compound must be introduced to control the pest species. These compounds do not discriminate between dna profiles. What kills or harms one species, will kill or harm all. It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.