Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.

**cyclonenum1** · 05-18-2007, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Clone9

The relavent time frame is from the industrial revolution on....mid-18th century or so. Prior to the use of fossil fuels and mass production of goods, humans likely had a much smaller impact on the environment.

Why is this the relevant period when the earth has been around for many thousands of years? Because this is the only time period we have actual data for?

Frankly, I do not think that we human's are as powerful as those who believe we are having a great negative impact on the earth do. If we were able to cause such dramatic changes in weather by our actions why don't we have the ability to stop hurricanes, for instance?

**cyclonenum1** · 05-18-2007, 07:57 AM

Two questions:

Can anyone tell me what "credentials" Al Gore has to be considered such an expert on the subject of global warming?

If it were actually happening, wouldn't global warming actually be a good thing? We would have longer growing seasons and more land area that would be available for growing crops...wouldn't we? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

**jdoggivjc** · 05-18-2007, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

Two questions:

Can anyone tell me what "credentials" Al Gore has to be considered such an expert on the subject of global warming?

If it were actually happening, wouldn't global warming actually be a good thing? We would have longer growing seasons and more land area that would be available for growing crops...wouldn't we? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Let's see... he was a Vice President and... AHEM... (excuse me, my throat closed up) HACK... HACK.. AHEM... "screwed" out of the 2000 Presidential election. Oh, wait. You said credentials... Nothing really comes to mind...

Also, when the polar icecaps melt, our enemies will be impacted much more than we will (being the U.S. has a lot of room to move inland) - China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Los Angeles...

**mapnerd** · 05-18-2007, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Also, when the polar icecaps melt, our enemies will be impacted much more than we will (being the U.S. has a lot of room to move inland) - China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Los Angeles...

Wow. This is amazing. I'm sure that moving LA and Manhattan more inland will be really easy and cheap too.

**Cyclonepride** · 05-18-2007, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by mapnerd

Wow. This is amazing. I'm sure that moving LA and Manhattan more inland will be really easy and cheap too.

Yeah, that is eminent

.

**jdoggivjc** · 05-18-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by mapnerd

Wow. This is amazing. I'm sure that moving LA and Manhattan more inland will be really easy and cheap too.

sarcasm, buddy, it's called sarcasm. let's see if you can spell it with me -- S-A-R-C-A-S-M... now let's see if you can say it with me... saaaaarr-caaaaasm...

as defined by Webster, a mocking or contemptuously ironic remark. synonyms include facetious, witty, smart-aleck, not serious, etc.

now that we've learned a new word today, maybe you'll realize something that ridiculously far out there can't POSSIBLY meant to be taken seriously...

**Kyle** · 05-18-2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

You are bent on it...look at your posts.

My posts that have pointed to evidence? Clearly basing my opinion on evidence is a horrible way to go...

Global warming is nothing more than an unproven scientific theory that has become politicized.

You know this because your uneducated opinion tells you so?

So how long have we been tracking temperatures? The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales of measurement have been around less than 300 years and I am pretty certain we did not start tracking daily temperatures until sometime in the very late 1800's (slightly more than 100 years ago).

Again, do some research. There are proxies for temperature measurement.

The United Nations used as your source for scientific proof of global warming? Come on, you probably still believe the crap you were taught about the UN back in Junior HS and HS. The UN is a total joke. Don't insult me by bringing up evidence from the UN.

I was really citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, although it is UN sponsored. You would cite who to support your conclusions? Oh yeah, you haven't done any research. Also, the IPCC also doesn't conduct its own research.
About IPCC

Originally Posted by The above website

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.

At least I'm willing to admit that I don't know for certain (although I tend to think global warming is either not happening or if it is it is not caused by humans)...you however have totally lapped the argument up.

There are few things anyone can know for certain. If you want to take that to its logical conclusion the only things you can really know for certain are mathematical principles and that you exist. However, there are some levels of confidence where it makes sense to believe. If the evidence changes to show something else then my opinions will change too.

Ah, agendas, do you think the UN doesn't have an agenda, do you think those arguing that humans are causing global warming don't have an agenda?

Everyone has their biases. Some people's are less extreme than others. Some are more willing to base their beliefs on evidence, while some prefer to believe what they want to hear.

**Clone9** · 05-18-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

Why is this the relevant period when the earth has been around for many thousands of years? Because this is the only time period we have actual data for?

Frankly, I do not think that we human's are as powerful as those who believe we are having a great negative impact on the earth do. If we were able to cause such dramatic changes in weather by our actions why don't we have the ability to stop hurricanes, for instance?

It is the relavent period because that is when we started pumping out pollutants into the environment on a large scale. Prior to that, any pollution was on a much smaller scale.

Are you serious about being able to stop hurricanes? Humans pumping CO2 into the environment is having unpredicted and uncontrollable outcomes. We weren't trying to cause global warming....it is just happening. Being able to control specific events and having a part in the changing climate are completely different things.

**Cyclonepride** · 05-18-2007, 11:24 AM

Would someone please, for the love of all that is holy, tell me what this graph means, and how we can honestly look at it and say that man made CO2 is causing global warming.

Global Warming - What Do You Believe - O. T.-global_temp2.jpg

**Kyle** · 05-18-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

Would someone please, for the love of all that is holy, tell me what this graph means, and how we can honestly look at it and say that man made CO2 is causing global warming.

1. The conclusions are clearly not based on that graph.
2. If you "zoom out" far enough any human impact would not be noticeable. We could have changed the average global temp singlehandedly by 5 degrees and it would not appear significant on that graph until you had thousands of years of data.

**Cyphor** · 05-18-2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

Two questions:

Can anyone tell me what "credentials" Al Gore has to be considered such an expert on the subject of global warming?

If it were actually happening, wouldn't global warming actually be a good thing? We would have longer growing seasons and more land area that would be available for growing crops...wouldn't we? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

The best part about global warning is that most of the eastern US will disapear and Iowa will be on the coast. Think about it, instead of going to Davenport we'll go to the beach!

**Cyphor** · 05-18-2007, 02:30 PM

I'm also a big fan of the movie Water World. I want gills like Costner!

**cyclonenum1** · 05-18-2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kyle

We could have changed the average global temp singlehandedly by 5 degrees and it would not appear significant on that graph until you had thousands of years of data.

Huh?? So anything that has happened in the last 100 years or so is now cataclysmic and the end is near?? You can't have it both ways.

By the way, what exactly are "proxies for temperature measurement".

Anything that is "UN sponsored" is dubious at best.

I would submit that those pushing the Global Warming agenda have the most "extreme biases" in this debate.

Actually, there are many "things anyone can know for certain". Global Warming is just not one of them. It is only a theory that has been concocted in the last 25 years or so.

I live near the Gulf of Mexico. Many environmental "scientists" have fought to keep oil companies from drilling in the area because of all the potential environmental damage. Guess what, the best place to catch fish is near an oil platform in the Gulf...they seem to love those areas. The same thing has happened in Alaska. When I was a kid the experts all said that building the Alaskan pipeline was going to wipe out all kinds of wildlife. The reality has been totally the opposite. Many species flock to the warmth of the pipeline and they are procreating in record numbers.

I think you need to remember two things:

Man is not powerful enough to change the earth.

Man is part of the earth and should not be assumed to have only a negative impact on the earth.

**herbicide** · 05-18-2007, 03:32 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but all the doomsday talk about coastal flooding must be incorrect it the icecaps melt.

The reason for this is; Doesn't water expand when frozen? I remember from classes it is one of the few materials that display this property.

If water does indeed expand when frozen, wouldn't it take up less space when melted, therefore lowering the ocean levels?

Like I say, I could be completely wrong!

**cyclonenum1** · 05-18-2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Clone9

It is the relavent period because that is when we started pumping out pollutants into the environment on a large scale. Prior to that, any pollution was on a much smaller scale.

Are you serious about being able to stop hurricanes? Humans pumping CO2 into the environment is having unpredicted and uncontrollable outcomes. We weren't trying to cause global warming....it is just happening. Being able to control specific events and having a part in the changing climate are completely different things.

My friend, humans are not making the environment unpredictable and uncontrollable...the environment is unpredictable and uncontrollable all by itself! That is my point. As humans there is little we can do to impact or control our environment. I know that is tough for some to believe but It is true.