Global warming (Climate change)

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
User avatar
Jim_UK
Former Team Member
Posts: 18478
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: Darwen N.West UK

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by Jim_UK »

It is highly unlikely that it would be your kids or even your grand children that would be affected.

An interesting documentary that I saw earlier this week was on Global warming and they showed evidence that what we are so worried about has happened over and over again throughout the history of the earth.
Oddly the net result of global warming is global cooling as the influx of fresh water from melting ice caps going into the North Atlantic changes the salinity of the water and stops a vital current from flowing. This in turn causes the ice caps to expand and the Earth moves into an ice age. (Last one was only 10,000 years or so ago)
The earth now is in fact a lot colder than it was millions of years ago as they have found evidence that Antarctica was in fact a tropical forest.
If the expanding ice age reaches as far south as Texas then they say that it is irreversible and we end up with a "Snowball earth" Over a period then of perhaps several million years the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rise, the ice recedes and the climate gradually returns to what we see today.


One thing is sure - there are lots of folks making a lot of money on the back of this worry over the ozone layer and governments are using it as an excuse to cream more tax from the already heavily burdened taxpayers. Does sticking a few extra pence per litre on fuel cause fuel consumption or miles travelled to go down? I think not but then I am noted for being rather cynical.

Jim
The truth is out there.
Unfortunately they will not let you anywhere near it!
User avatar
bbrian017
Registered User
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by bbrian017 »

point Jim I really liked this,
The earth now is in fact a lot colder than it was millions of years ago as they have found evidence that Antarctica was in fact a tropical forest.


I mean if this is what my kids seriously have to look forward to then right on. I must say, and with no evidence I swear it's the flights to the moon that are burning the atmosphere. Think of the pressure the NASA space craft must cause when coming in and out

just my 2 cents
User avatar
CiDhed
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:24 am

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by CiDhed »

Stop eating meat if you are so concerned. The meat industry causes more damage to the environment then the transportation system does.

Or... You can be a koolaide drinking hypocrite like your leader Al Gore. :lol:
hanebu
Registered User
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:16 pm

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by hanebu »

"Global warming" is a big hoax. Dont believe this NWO-Morons.
_underscore_
Registered User
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Central USA

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by _underscore_ »

Let's see:

"There's a consensus amount scientists that Global Warming exists" - Yes, just a consensus. Now let's look at another parallel: "There's a consensus that the sun orbits the Earth". The Catholic church greatly denounced people who said the Earth orbits the sun, even going so far as to arrest them, etc.

What's happening today? Some meteorologists are saying those that don't buy into this consensus should be discredited. Now wait a moment, we have two things:

We have consensus.
We have a theory.

Now, do any of those actually imply fact? No, they don't. Consensus in science means zilch.

Some other things:

Earth does not have some sort of "delicate balance" in it's atmosphere. I've seen proof of this at a creek I've visited a good deal. One year the creek would be completely flooded with algae, in about 2 (3?) years it toppled the old bridge that crosses it. This creek is not being "destroyed by global warming" - It's running it's natural course. Many things in nature change over time, sometimes quickly, sometimes not.

As for using other energy sources: I see no reason to do this, except perhaps nuclear.
Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 3:56 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by Roberdin »

_underscore_ wrote: We have consensus.
We have a theory.

Now, do any of those actually imply fact? No, they don't. Consensus in science means zilch.

If the consensus is made by thousands of scientists who have each spent the better part of their lives gathering evidence, then it's a bit hard to equate that with zilch. Sure there are some holes in the theory, but that does not in some way repudiate the mass of evidence already gathered.
Roberdin
_underscore_
Registered User
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Central USA

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by _underscore_ »

Roberdin wrote:
_underscore_ wrote: We have consensus.
We have a theory.

Now, do any of those actually imply fact? No, they don't. Consensus in science means zilch.

If the consensus is made by thousands of scientists who have each spent the better part of their lives gathering evidence, then it's a bit hard to equate that with zilch. Sure there are some holes in the theory, but that does not in some way repudiate the mass of evidence already gathered.
Incorrect. We have consensus on a theory,
_underscore_ wrote: "There's a consensus amount scientists that Global Warming exists" - Yes, just a consensus. Now let's look at another parallel: "There's a consensus that the sun orbits the Earth". The Catholic church greatly denounced people who said the Earth orbits the sun, even going so far as to arrest them, etc.
That too was a consensus by many scholars of their day.

As I said, consensus and theories mean nothing until realistically proven. Using graphs and pictures that are misleading and/or misrepresented do nothing to prove this theory.
Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 3:56 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by Roberdin »

So you are suggesting then that all these thousands of scientists have sat around and said "Yeah, we agree with that. Since we all agree anyway, let's not bother collecting any evidence, and instead pretend to the world that we did by drawing some pretty pictures?"

There is a huge amount of data about this subject, much of which can be interpreted as evidence for climate change spawned, or at least, significantly assisted, by humans — including the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the last few years. Now this evidence may be controversial, but you can not simply reduce it to an unsupported 'consensus'.
Roberdin
_underscore_
Registered User
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Central USA

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by _underscore_ »

Roberdin wrote: So you are suggesting then that all these thousands of scientists have sat around and said "Yeah, we agree with that. Since we all agree anyway, let's not bother collecting any evidence, and instead pretend to the world that we did by drawing some pretty pictures?"

There is a huge amount of data about this subject, much of which can be interpreted as evidence for climate change spawned, or at least, significantly assisted, by humans — including the rise in carbon dioxide levels in the last few years. Now this evidence may be controversial, but you can not simply reduce it to an unsupported 'consensus'.

I am not. I understand that there is climate change. I do not, however, think that means we're all going to die in a burning ball of fire (sort of paraphrasing) As I have said, the Earth will probably sort itself out to a normal level within a few decades, then will start cooling, and we may have 'global cooling' hype.

There is not enough real evidence to show that the climate is severely screwed.
gamefreakjf11
Registered User
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:56 am

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by gamefreakjf11 »

i think we should move to jupiter's moon (i forgot which) :D :D :D
Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 3:56 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by Roberdin »

_underscore_ wrote: I am not. I understand that there is climate change. I do not, however, think that means we're all going to die in a burning ball of fire (sort of paraphrasing) As I have said, the Earth will probably sort itself out to a normal level within a few decades, then will start cooling, and we may have 'global cooling' hype.

There is not enough real evidence to show that the climate is severely screwed.

I don't think most people besides the media think the climate or the world is permanently screwed. I think that the main issue is that if the ice caps melt - for whatever reason - we lose a lot of important agricultural and urban land, world wide. Perhaps not permanently on the geology scale, but for a long enough time to affect us all, or rather our descendants, badly.
Roberdin
_underscore_
Registered User
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Central USA

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by _underscore_ »

Roberdin wrote:
_underscore_ wrote: I am not. I understand that there is climate change. I do not, however, think that means we're all going to die in a burning ball of fire (sort of paraphrasing) As I have said, the Earth will probably sort itself out to a normal level within a few decades, then will start cooling, and we may have 'global cooling' hype.

There is not enough real evidence to show that the climate is severely screwed.

I don't think most people besides the media think the climate or the world is permanently screwed. I think that the main issue is that if the ice caps melt - for whatever reason - we lose a lot of important agricultural and urban land, world wide. Perhaps not permanently on the geology scale, but for a long enough time to affect us all, or rather our descendants, badly.
Actually, from what I understand, the Arctic ice caps are much more thicker than we thought, so there is little concern there.
Roberdin
Registered User
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 3:56 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by Roberdin »

If they are much thicker than we thought, that simply means that there is more ice and therefore, potentially more water.
Roberdin
_underscore_
Registered User
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:20 pm
Location: Central USA

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by _underscore_ »

Roberdin wrote: If they are much thicker than we thought, that simply means that there is more ice and therefore, potentially more water.

... or it means they are simply not melting at a rate that could be a severe problem.
User avatar
CiDhed
Registered User
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:24 am

Re: Global warming (Climate change)

Post by CiDhed »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

Or global warming is a natural cycle of the planetary system and has nothing to do with humans or animals. As I stated before this "Global Warming" campaign is a political based agenda to profit of the gullibility of people.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”