I'm siding with the US evangelicals!!!

[Cris]

Hapsburg,

Global warming is not a myth.

That man is causing it in any signifcant manner is indeed a myth or more accurately a political misrepresentation.

Those that think it is needs to shut up.

Why do you want to stifle free speech?

 

[heavymetal]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0907-wwf.html


There is no doubt that temperatures are rising and glaciers and inlandsice are declining !!!!!

The only question is whether it is man made or not !!!!

Of course religious people might claim it is due to lack of faith - more and more people go to hell and when they (and their fat) are burned it causes overheating - the devil has to ventilate heat out into the atmosphere - so now we are warming up ....
Shame on you , unbelievers !!!!!

Could also be all the mass demonstrations against cartoons that heat things up .....

 

[James R]

Cris,

But it disperses easily and widespread and becomes ineffective as a significant harm.

That's not true. It is a major cause of global warming. It's a simple equation. There are processes which pump extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and there are processes which take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. If more carbon dioxide goes in than comes out, we get a build up, and global warming is then inevitable.

And there is some problem [with cutting forests] there but the effects are localized.

The effects on the forests are localised, if by "localised" you mean restricted to areas the size of whole nations, because those are the sizes of some of the areas which have been or are being wiped out.

The effects on the general environment are not always localised, but can be global. Chop the forests and you remove some of that carbon dioxide sink I mentioned above.

And we've barely even touched on loss of biodiversity. But that's for another thread.

And if you're thinking the oceans are unaffected, look up how many fisheries have become uneconomical over the past 100 years.

These are insignificant surface activities.

What portion of fish living near the "surface", in the range that is fished? What portion of fish species? And how does their removal affect ecosystems?

 

[Michael]

The side effects are also worth noting.

For example: Siberia's rapid thaw causes alarm

The area, which is the size of France and Germany combined, could release billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This could potentially act as a tipping point, causing global warming to snowball, scientists fear.

The situation is an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming," researcher Sergei Kirpotin, of Tomsk State University, Russia, told New Scientist magazine. The whole western Siberian sub-Arctic region has started to thaw, he added, and this "has all happened in the last three or four years".

 

[Ophiolite]

Spider - it is just surface stuff, and are you sure a tenth of ALL fish are affected? There are mountain ranges under the ocean higher than Everest - it is almost a new and largely unknown world down there.

Point 1: We know enough to know that there is very little life down there. [Don't start quoting black smokers at me. They account for some very limited life forms in some very restricted areas.]
Point 2: It is the surface waters, where sunlight can reach, and so photosynthesis can provide the base of the food chain that are the most important from a biological perspective. Surface stuff, as you so patronisingly call it, is all there is from any practical point of view.
Point 3: Global warming is a reality.
Point 4: There is a very wide spread consensus that it is largely caused by man.
Point 5: For every dissenting voice to that consensus, you will find a scientist who feels strongly that the magnitude, character and rate of the effects of the change have been underestimated by an order of magnitude.
Point 6: If you wish to play Russian Roulette do it with a loaded gun and your skull, not with my planet.

 

[Hapsburg]

That man is causing it in any signifcant manner is indeed a myth or more accurately a political misrepresentation.

Bullfuck. Toxic emissions from factories are a primary cause of the increase of greenhouse gasses. They aren't the only reason, but they certainly are speeding it all along.

 

[Cris]

The effects of man are insignificant to long term natural climatic cycles and events.

Ophiolite

There is also wide spread consensus that a god exists, still no proof for that as there is no proof that man has any significant effect on global warming.

And your point about life not going deep into the oceans and global warming was.....?

Our potential to mess up the planet with wasteful energy processes is purely temporary as technology and more efficient power mechanisms become inevitable, not because of any futile desire to save the planet, but because it is in our nature to adapt, create, and improve. The planet has survived quite nicely for a few billion years without us, and our current puny effects are but a pin prick in geological time.

 

[Cris]

Hapsburg,

Toxic emissions from factories are a primary cause of the increase of greenhouse gasses. They aren't the only reason, but they certainly are speeding it all along.

That is indeed the claims of the Global Warming religion.

 

[Cottontop3000]

I have to agree with Cris, even though I don't want to in this case. We don't know if we are creating global warming or not. There is no conclusive proof one way or the other. It's a nice theory though. I'd love to see sea levels rise enough to take out half of America and change the way we think about ourselves long enough for us to get cocky again and be frozen to death. But, like most things that are truly important, we don't know jack shit.

 

[QuarkMoon]

What a funny debate. The global warming advocates have done nothing but spew rhetoric. "Yes it does have an impact." "No, it is definitely caused by man, because I said so."

Wow, you are making all global warming advocates look bad.

 

[Ophiolite]

The effects of man are insignificant to long term natural climatic cycles and events.
.

Read the small print. Read the headlines. Read the executive summaries. They are not insiginifcant. We are responsible for the largest mass extinction since the KT boundary. We are affecting the climate. The fact that climatic changes and extinctions would occur without man does not mean that we are not directly responsible for most of what is changing right now.

There is also wide spread consensus that a god exists, still no proof for that as there is no proof that man has any significant effect on global warming..

Their is no widespread consensus amongst scientists that God exists. There is abundant proof of climate change influenced by man. If you cannot see it there are three possibilities:
1) You are too stubborn to look
2) You are too stupid to understand.
3) You are too myopic to care.

Our potential to mess up the planet with wasteful energy processes is purely temporary as technology and more efficient power mechanisms become inevitable, not because of any futile desire to save the planet, but because it is in our nature to adapt, create, and improve. The planet has survived quite nicely for a few billion years without us, and our current puny effects are but a pin prick in geological time.

I have absolutely no doubt that the planet can survive our activities. I am equally certain that mankind may not survive the consequences of our own activities, and that many individual humans will die as a result, while for the vast majority life will be decidedly less pleasant.

If you are disinterested in the future of humanity, then you are quite correct to disregard global warming and my add a fourth item to my list:
4) Too egocentric to give a damn about future generations.

In any event your arguments are a threat to those future generations. Sad.

 

[Cris]

Interesting opinion article on global warming perspetives and beliefs.

http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm

 

[Cris]

Ophiolite,

Nature causes greenhouse gases - recent article Jan 2006.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001557.html

Of course trying to extract the few pieces of real science from the politically charged opinions and beliefs is not so simple.

Extract -

The driving message of the eco-doomsters has been ‘green plants good, man bad’. This has become a received wisdom that simply cannot be questioned. It is taught in our schools as fact. It has spurred each of our political parties to turn a deeper shade of green than the others. Anyone foolhardy enough to challenge this orthodoxy is mercilessly mocked or vilified as stupid, insane or in the pay of the evil oil lobby.

Yet lo and behold, what do we now read? That the forests are actually partly responsible for global warming. Rather than ‘save the trees’, it seems, it’s ‘blame the trees’!

 

[James R]

If you need evidence that man is having a drastic effect on the environment, consider animal species extinction rates, to take just one example.

It is estimated that of animal extinctions in past 500 years, well over half have occurred in the last 100 years. Of the extinctions which have occurred over the last 100 years, well over half have occurred in the last 50 years. Of the extinctions which have occurred over the past 50 years, well over half have occurred in the last 10 years.

 

[Cottontop3000]

If you need evidence that man is having a drastic effect on the environment, consider animal species extinction rates, to take just one example.

It is estimated that of animal extinctions in past 500 years, well over half have occurred in the last 100 years. Of the extinctions which have occurred over the last 100 years, well over half have occurred in the last 50 years. Of the extinctions which have occurred over the past 50 years, well over half have occurred in the last 10 years.

James R, I am not (nor is Cris, to my knowledge) saying that man is not having a drastic effect on the environment, primarily in the case of animal extinctions. However, global warming is not the reason for the extinction of these animals. Are you implying that it is? Since the discussion here is centered around global warming, it seems so.

 

[Cris]

Ophiloite,

There is abundant proof of climate change influenced by man.

Well no there isn't. There is certainly evidence of highly emotional politicised claims, rush to publish sensational claims, and a lot of extremly poor science (errors, and biased selectivity). Take a look at many of the blunders shown in this article.

Not only is there no crisis, it is doubtful that global warming is actually occurring, and no evidence that man's activities are having any effect on climate. Using some simple practical tests like measuring sea levels and other indicators, shows little to no change.

http://www.john-daly.com/issues.htm

 

[Cris]

James,

Our ignorant and arrogant blundering rampage over much of the planet surface is no doubt having an effect on other species. However, I'm largely disinterested in that aspect of planetary activity. But as Cottontop suggests, this doesn't appear to have any significant bearing on whether man is causing climate change.

 

[Cris]

Ophiolite,

Too egocentric to give a damn about future generations.

In any event your arguments are a threat to those future generations. Sad.

It is not so much that I am disinterested just that the claims in perspective do not withstand close objective scrutiny. You are simply caught up in the popular frenzy being pushed by the media and over zealous scientists and politicans.

But as an aside I don't believe future generations have a biological future and that this planet is simply a temporary transitory home. That we may ravage and destroy this planet is in the long term unimportant.

 

[James R]

Cris:

There is certainly evidence of highly emotional politicised claims, rush to publish sensational claims, and a lot of extremly poor science (errors, and biased selectivity).

This is true on both sides. But who has the greater vested interest? Those in the fossil fuel industries, who want to maintain current practices, or environmentalists? And where does government fit in?

Not only is there no crisis, it is doubtful that global warming is actually occurring, and no evidence that man's activities are having any effect on climate. Using some simple practical tests like measuring sea levels and other indicators, shows little to no change.

What about data such as the increased incidence of category 4 and 5 hurricanes in recent years?

You are simply caught up in the popular frenzy being pushed by the media and over zealous scientists and politicans.

Or could it be that you are giving far too much weight to the opinions of what are actually a small minority of scientists and analysts? Are you getting all your information from the internet again?

But as an aside I don't believe future generations have a biological future and that this planet is simply a temporary transitory home. That we may ravage and destroy this planet is in the long term unimportant.

It's not unimportant until we've left the planet. If we make our planet unihabitable in the near future, future generations have no biological future.

 

[Cris]

James,

This is true on both sides. But who has the greater vested interest? Those in the fossil fuel industries, who want to maintain current practices, or environmentalists?

It doesn’t matter, politics is about opinion not about who is right

And where does government fit in?

Those who want to be elected simply go with public opinion, or encourage it, and at this time the fear of global warming is a vote winner.

What about data such as the increased incidence of category 4 and 5 hurricanes in recent years?

Any statistical sequence will have lows and highs. Can you show this is more than that?

Or could it be that you are giving far too much weight to the opinions of what are actually a small minority of scientists and analysts?

Argumentum ad populum.

Are you getting all your information from the internet again?

Are you implying my sources are false then?

It's not unimportant until we've left the planet. If we make our planet unihabitable in the near future, future generations have no biological future.

I think that’s my point, there is no danger in the short term from us causing global warming.