Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 3 of 69

Thanks for that information Nighthawk, it's - Page 3 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 1st Nov, 2005 - 7:55am

Text RPG Play Text RPG ?
 

+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  ...Latest (69) »
Posts: 549 - Views: 62259
global warming Global warming has been in and out as the "latest" hot topic for many years. It is, according to modern scientists, the result of man-made industrial pollutants, clearing forested areas, agriculture, etc. But now they are thinking it started way before the Industrial Revolution...
18th Feb, 2005 - 6:22pm / Post ID: #

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 3

Unpopular views are often silenced - this happens to creationist scientists, to informed and independently-minded doctors who aren't in the thrall of their colleagues and drug-company-owned directors, etc. etc.

And then we could dig a little deeper...
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=16085



International Level: Junior Politician / Political Participation: 100 ActivistPoliticianJunior Politician 10%


Sponsored Links:
29th Sep, 2005 - 3:16am / Post ID: #
QUOTE
Arctic ice cap 'will disappear within the century'
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 29/09/2005)

The Arctic ice cap is on track to disappear within a century, according to a study published yesterday.

The satellite survey by the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), and the space agency Nasa reveals that for the fourth consecutive year there has been "a stunning reduction" in Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer, placing species such as polar bears at risk.

The survey recorded the lowest sea-ice extent yet seen - 2.06 million square miles on Sept 19 - 20 per cent below the mean average September sea-ice extent from 1978 to 2001.

That is the equivalent of 500,000 square miles - an area about twice the size of Texas.

This year "will almost certainly surpass 2002 as the lowest amount of ice cover in more than a century", said Julienne Stroeve, of the Centre. If current rates of decline in sea ice continue, the summertime Arctic could be ice-free well before the end of this century.

A recent assessment of trends throughout the past century indicates that the current decline also exceeds past low ice periods in the 1930s and 1940s.


The problem here is that there wasn't any measuring of the ice cover in previous centuries. How do they know that this is unprecedented or even unusual? We're having a lot of severe weather over the past couple of decades; I don't think a low ice cover means that it all will disappear by Christmas, nor do I think it means that there's any acceleration in global warming. It's simply something that hasn't been measured before.

In my opinion, of course.
Roz


International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 ActivistPoliticianAmbassador 59.5%


26th Oct, 2005 - 12:02pm / Post ID: #

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

I think there is irrefutable evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are damaging the environment at alarming rates.

I believe global warming does exist. The sea-levels are rising, we know this as fact. The north pole is melting, so are many glaciers that support great rivers around the globe.

What I can't understand is why people are so determined to discredit global warming for purely financial/economic reasons.

We know pollution is choking this planet, that is not a liberal left opinion, that is fact. So why does our society have petty arguments about the extent of the damage? Measures must be taken to prevent pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of the extent of global warming.

Kyoto is one measure to encourage large corporations to be good global citizens. It is not a cure. And it's certainly not going to hurt the world's leading economies. And if it did, is that more important than looking after the world we live in?

So while this is an interesting debate on a scientific level, I think it is really missing the point. We know our current behaviour is destroying the environment so lets fix that.

QUOTE
this happens to creationist scientists


By creationist science you don't mean those who invented the intelligent design (God) theory?


International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 ActivistPoliticianNegotiator 45.3%


Sponsored Links:
27th Oct, 2005 - 12:54am / Post ID: #

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Well, from my point of view, it is even more obvious that IF there is actual global warming occuring (which even climatologists still argue about), then God is responsible. After all, there is some discussion of great heat occuring in the last days before Jesus returns.

See, I can make just as good an argument, with as much authority, as any global warming enthusiast can.

This is NOT to say that global warming is not occuring. It is pointing out that we have a tremendously huge lack of real evidence. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence, but there is absolutely no long term climatological observation that is needed to make such a judgement.

I am also not saying that pollution isn't causing problems, as it obviously does. However, the US, Britain, Australia, and the rest of the industrialized world are already cleaning up their acts. Air and water in the US are the cleanest they have been in decades, and improving every year. In fact, they are probably better than ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The Kyoto treaty is/was a very flawed, corrupt treaty. It punished those countries that are making the most progress in cleaning up the environment, while rewarding those countries (China, India, Vietnam, North Korea, etc) that are becoming ever worse polluters.

As for the assertion that it would not have any impact on the economic welfare of the industrialized world, are you really willing to take the chance of a worldwide economic collapse based on the biased, unsupported theories based on weak computer models, not supported by at least 50% of climatologists? Most of the "scientists" that support the idea of human caused global warming are not trained in climatology.

In the 1970s, I remember all sorts of advertisements on TV claiming that by 2000, there wouldn't be any trees in North America, that we would have destroyed all of them. Instead, we have 30% more tree coverage than we did in 1900. There were other TV ads claiming that all of North America would soon be in an ice age, because of human pollution. Now, the claim is that global warming is occuring.

My favorite of all anecdotes about global warming comes from Africa. There is a claim going around that Mt. Killimanjaro (sp?) proves that global warming is occuring. In about 2002, there are pictures of the mountain without any snow on it, while only a couple of years previous, it was covered with a "glacier".

The only problem with that anecdote is that less than 5 years before the "glacier" picture, the mountain was even more bare! It seems that this mountain goes through normal cycles of heavy snow and light snow coverage.

So, I go back to what I said in the beginning. How do you know that all of this "global warming" or "climate change" is not God's work? The book of Revelation makes it very clear that all the whining and moaning of the environmentalist whackos is wasted, since 1/3 of the sea life will be destroyed in a single event, while 1/3 of the world's fresh water will be destroyed in another. It goes on from there.

How do the people who don't believe in God prove that any climate change isn't coming from purely natural means that they don't understand yet?

Of course they can't. Global warming is a political cause designed to attack the foundation of the modern economic life for the entire world, by modern Luddites. Arvhic showed it in his post, with the claim that they Kyoto treaty was designed to punish "corporations" for their evil ways, when corporations provide the vast majority of the benefits that the Western world currently enjoys, and the Third World is currently frantically seeking.


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%


27th Oct, 2005 - 10:52am / Post ID: #

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

First, let me state unequivocally that I am not an environmentally friendly member of society. I only recycle because my community has been threatened with per bag charges for trash removal if we didn't increase the percentage of our trash that is recycled. I drive a truck without concern for gas mileage - except recently because of costs increases, not because of decreasing supply, etc., etc. I say that so that you will all take what I say as nothing more than my opinion and not all than educated of one at that.

Now, I read somewhere that one possibility with global warming is that we have been getting warmer as a planet forever. Specifically, that since the ice age we have been gradually getting warmer and that it isn't do to an hole in the ozone or anything like that. I cannot provide references, I am simply telling you what I have read. I remember it, because, I don't personally believe in the whole greenhouse gases, global warming environmental issue to begin with so when I read an article that supports my belief it, naturally, sticks in my mind.

Now, on the other side of the coin...

QUOTE
In the 1970s, I remember all sorts of advertisements on TV claiming that by 2000, there wouldn't be any trees in North America, that we would have destroyed all of them. Instead, we have 30% more tree coverage than we did in 1900.


Perhaps the reason this is true is because the ads motivated people to take action. Maybe if we had continued to do as we were doing at that time with no real thought of conservation, we wouldn't have more tree coverage today than we did them.

So, while I am not sure I believe in the entire global warming theory, in fact, I am sure I don't, if it gets us to reduce pollution and make better choices environmentally, then, in my opinion, it is a good thing just the same.

Attached Image Edited: funbikerchick on 27th Oct, 2005 - 10:52am


International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 ActivistPoliticianDiplomat 32%


Sponsored Links:
31st Oct, 2005 - 12:39pm / Post ID: #

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 3

QUOTE
Well, from my point of view, it is even more obvious that IF there is actual global warming occuring (which even climatologists still argue about), then God is responsible. After all, there is some discussion of great heat occuring in the last days before Jesus returns.


With all due respect, there is less evidence God exists, or is responsible for the heating of the earth. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'm not going to go into the religion aspect, but my simple point is that we know pollution is hurting the environment. That can not be disputed.

So why do we have discussions about how much damage global warming is doing, who is responsible, when is doomsday etc? Does it not make more sense to change our behaviour to prevent environmental damage?

QUOTE
but there is absolutely no long term climatological observation that is needed to make such a judgement.


How long do we need to wait before we start doing something about this? A thousand years, 10,000? There IS plenty of climatological evidence the Artic circle is melting at never before seen rates. There is also plenty of evidence that sea levels are rising. The world is warming up, lets not kid ourselves here.

QUOTE
Most of the "scientists" that support the idea of human caused global warming are not trained in climatology.


This is a gross generalisation. Can you prove this? Are you an expert on climatology?

QUOTE
Instead, we have 30% more tree coverage than we did in 1900.


The US must be a very unique example. If this is true your country should be congratulated. This isn't the case in Australia and we are fairly environmentally conscious. I'm certain the exact opposite has happened in almost the whole developing world.

QUOTE
The book of Revelation makes it very clear that all the whining and moaning of the environmentalist whackos is wasted, since 1/3 of the sea life will be destroyed in a single event, while 1/3 of the world's fresh water will be destroyed in another. How do the people who don't believe in God prove that any climate change isn't coming from purely natural means that they don't understand yet?


Whoever wrote the book of revelation must be very clever. Did they write a chapter on how dinosaurs were eliminated and what causes Ice Ages? Or is that just scientific myth as well? How do people who believe in god ever prove that he/she/it has ever existed? By quoting a book written thousands of years ago? Scientific theories are exactly that. I haven't seen many provable theories from the Church, Mosque or Temple. Have you?

QUOTE
Arvhic showed it in his post, with the claim that they Kyoto treaty was designed to punish "corporations" for their evil ways, when corporations provide the vast majority of the benefits that the Western world currently enjoys, and the Third World is currently frantically seeking.


How on earth did you get that from my post? You have clearly mis-quoted me. How is Kyoto designed to punish poor multi-nationals? It must be such a hard life for CEOs sitting on multi-million dollar contracts to also have to care about the environment. Kyoto is simply a way of encouraging companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It won't hurt economies, there has been no evidence scientific, religious or economic to suggest it will.

My opinion on global warming really doesn't matter, I'm not a scientist. I would say funbiker has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't, we should be doing things to protect our environment.

Offtopic but,
Nighthawk, if you believe the third world is desperately trying to seek McDonalds, Coca Cola, nice cars, etc... I would encourage you to spend one day in a third world country to see how the poor really live and what is important to them. Some of the richest people I have ever met are those with the fewest possessions. Ignorance is bliss when you live in the world's wealthiest country.


Attached Image Edited: arvhic on 31st Oct, 2005 - 12:40pm


International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 ActivistPoliticianNegotiator 45.3%


31st Oct, 2005 - 8:30pm / Post ID: #

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

QUOTE (arvhic @ 31-Oct 05, 8:29 AM)
So why do we have discussions about how much damage global warming is doing, who is responsible, when is doomsday etc? Does it not make more sense to change our behaviour to prevent environmental damage?

As I pointed out, the US HAS changed our behavior. Our air and water is cleaner than it has been in decades, and is improving all the time.

QUOTE
Whoever wrote the book of revelation must be very clever. Did they write a chapter on how dinosaurs were eliminated and what causes Ice Ages? Or is that just scientific myth as well? How do people who believe in god ever prove that he/she/it has ever existed? By quoting a book written thousands of years ago? Scientific theories are exactly that. I haven't seen many provable theories from the Church, Mosque or Temple. Have you?


No, I can't say that I have. The religious experience is very personal, and definitely colors the view of the person who experiences it.

However, since we are talking about global warming here, I haven't seen any theories about that subject proven, either. In fact, the scientific method CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING! It creates theories, and tries to disprove them. It scientists are unable to disprove a hypothesis or theory, then it becomes a working theory that will last only until it can be disproven.

So, here is some basic information about global warming.
https://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm

This shows a bit about how difficult it is to figure out what the mean temperature is at any time.

Go to the main page of Junk Science for a tiny view of the costs vs. benefits of the Kyoto treaty. Of course, since the Kyoto treaty is the undisputed savior of mankind, I doubt you will believe anything bad about it. If you wish to dispute the claims and assertions of Junk Science and other sites that gather facts about the mythos (religion) of Global Warming, I suggest you take it up with them.
https://www.junkscience.com/

Arvhic, since you are so convinced that the Arctic is melting, you might like this particular article:
https://www.junkscience.com/dec04/jsa200404.htm
Polar Bear Scare
QUOTE
... The graph shows Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles roughly 40 years long. The Arctic seems to be undergoing a warming phase similar to one between 1900-1940 which will likely be followed by a cooling phase similar to that of 1940-1970.

The report's claim that increased manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a rise in Arctic temperatures is debunked by the same graph, which indicates the near-surface Arctic air temperature was higher around 1940 than now, despite all the greenhouse gas emissions since. ....


Here is some more discussion about the potential economic impacts of the Kyoto treaty:
https://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=89
QUOTE
Impact on American Consumers:

Consumers -- individuals, families, the elderly, and the poor -- would be hard hit. Here are some facts about the effect of these policies and their implementation on American consumers:


"Policies to curb emissions not only reduce income growth and curtail household consumption, they also worsen the distribution of income in the United States."
  • Carbon taxes will cause relatively large income losses in the poorest one-fifth of the population.
  • Stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by 2010 would reduce the growth of U.S. per capita income by about five percent per year.
  • Reducing emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels would reduce per capita income growth by about 10 percent per year.
  • The low-cost carbon tax in 2010 might be $160 per ton with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss estimated at 0.8 percent; the high-cost estimates suggest a tax of $260 per ton with GDP loss at 1.3 percent annually. (Low-cost refers to model assumptions that economy can change fuel and product mix easily in response to carbon tax; high-cost assumes adjustments would be more difficult.)
    From American Council for Capital Formation's Center for Policy Research. "Climate Change Policies, the Distribution of Income, and U.S. Living Standards," by Gary W. Yohe, professor of economics, Wesleyan University (September 1996)


  • "About 40 percent of an energy cost increase caused by a $100 per tonne tax would be experienced directly by households through increases in the cost of heating, cooling, lighting, running appliances, and driving motor vehicles."
  • The remainder of the tax-induced cost increases (60 percent) would affect industries first and then be passed onto consumers through higher prices for goods and services.
  • Every adult in the U.S. will have $862 less in the year 2010 if a $100 per ton carbon tax were in effect, even if taxes are recycled.
    Dr. Lawrence M. Horwitz, principal, DRI/McGraw-Hill, in "The Impact of Carbon Diozxide Emission Reductions on Living Standards and Lifestyles," a paper prepared for a conference sponsored by the ACCF Center for Policy Research (September 1996)


QUOTE
QUOTE

Arvhic showed it in his post, with the claim that they Kyoto treaty was designed to punish "corporations" for their evil ways, when corporations provide the vast majority of the benefits that the Western world currently enjoys, and the Third World is currently frantically seeking.


How on earth did you get that from my post? You have clearly mis-quoted me. How is Kyoto designed to punish poor multi-nationals? It must be such a hard life for CEOs sitting on multi-million dollar contracts to also have to care about the environment. Kyoto is simply a way of encouraging companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It won't hurt economies, there has been no evidence scientific, religious or economic to suggest it will.


Well, there is THIS line from your previous post:
QUOTE
Kyoto is one measure to encourage large corporations to be good global citizens. It is not a cure. And it's certainly not going to hurt the world's leading economies. And if it did, is that more important than looking after the world we live in?


You specifically said that Kyoto is designed to bring the corporations in line. It is an additional tax. You claim that hurting the economy is a small price to pay, I claim that hurting the economy is completely counterproductive.

Offtopic but,
I have spent time in the Third World. What I was referring to specifically is that India, China, and other "developing countries" are trying desperately to industrialize, and they are far worse polluters than any in the West (the "First World").


International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 ActivistPoliticianInternational Guru 85.4%


1st Nov, 2005 - 7:55am / Post ID: #

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

Thanks for that information Nighthawk, it's very useful. But based on the research I have done we will have to disagree on this.

Science is way of understanding life. Many scientific strands including physics, chemistry, biology etc help humans progress understanding, technology and living standards. Every piece of technology you use has some scientific basis to it. Without science we would live very simple lives.

I respect your POV about religion but I would respectfully remind you of the importance of science. On the global warming front I believe that greenhouse emissions certainly contribute to global warming. We know that warming exists. All science is trying to do is find a reasonable way to explain how our behaviour contributes to that and what other factors are at play.

QUOTE
The economic outlook on Kyoto you posted was devised by a think-tank called ACCF Center for Policy Research. This group specifically creates policy to improve the US's position as the world's pre-eminent super-power. I would certainly be concerned about the validity or independence of such a body in providing an objective outlook. This organisation clearly orchestrates favourable messages for big business. Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't sponsored by big business. The below passage was found on their website:

The ACCF's policy goals--strong capital formation and cost effective environmental policies--address these challenges and can help assure that the United States continues its role as the world's pre-eminent power, enjoys the highest standard of living in the world (which is a lie because the US doesn't have the higest living standard), and perseveres in leading the way toward economic progress for the less fortunate across the globe.

To carry out its mission, the ACCF and ACCF Center for Policy Research continue to make significant contributions in the economic and environmental policy arenas by testifying before Congress, sponsoring research, hosting forums, publishing reports, maintaining a Web site, www.accf.org, and meeting with U.S. and international policymakers, business leaders, and the media to focus on pro-capital formation policies.

The media (which media?) continues to recognize the ACCF as a "well-connected spokesman for American business in Washington," a "key player" in policy circles, and "one of the most influential organizations operating behind the scenes" in the Washington policymaking arena.


https://www.junkscience.com/ <--- Mate, this website is an activist website against Kyoto, yet again it clearly lacks independence and is agenda driven. Furthermore, it has no authorship or ownership so quite frankly there is no reason for me to believe a word it says.

Do you have any independent economic outlooks on Kyoto, one's that aren't attached to big business or driven by US geo-political ambitions?

I never said Kyoto was about bringing corporations into line. Those are your words. All I said was it encouraged large corporations to behave like responsible global citizens. If you go to somebody's house and make a mess, do you leave it for others to clean up, or do you offer to clean it yourself? Corporations, just like normal citizens must be responsible for the damage they do to the planet. Are people free to pollute a river or park by dumping their garbage in it? No, of course they aren't in a civilised society. We all have responsibilities to look after our environment. The same should apply for multi-nationals. Why should large companies who make a lot of money and are most capable of looking after the environment be exempt from this responsibility?

QUOTE
What I was referring to specifically is that India, China, and other "developing countries" are trying desperately to industrialize, and they are far worse polluters than any in the West (the "First World").


Yet again this is untrue. The US and even Australia are far worse polluters per capita than India and China combined. You can only compare pollution statistics on a per capita basis. I have posted statistics about this on a previous topic. And I'm a little surprised that your visit to India would give you the impression they crave to become like the Western world. Indians have a very different culture where material possessions are not the most important thing. All countries crave better living conditions for their people, but to say they want to be like the western world is extremely ignorant, and downright untrue. It's like the ridiculous assumption by your government that terrorists are jealous of the US way of life, and that's why they chose to attack US interests in their home countries.

QUOTE

Just a few interesting facts published in the mainstream UK paper the Independent.

The United States constitutes 4 per cent of the world population
It is responsible for a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions - an average of 40,000 pounds of carbon dioxide is released by each US citizen every year - the highest of any country in the world, and more than China, India and Japan combined.
Every year US industries release at least 2.4 billion pounds of chemicals into the atmosphere
Despite having just 2 per cent of known oil reserves, the US consumes 25 per cent of the world's oil production
16 per cent of world oil production goes into american cars alone.
Approximately 160 million people living in 32 US states live in regions with smog and soot levels considered dangerous to health
More than 1.5 million gallons of oil were spilled into US waters in 2000 alone
As much as 5.99 tonnes of carbon dioxide is emitted per American per year, compared with 0.31 tonnes per Indian or 0.05 tonnes per Bangladeshi
The average american produces 864kg of municipal waste per year, almost three times the quantity of rubbish produced annually by an Italian.


Now the above information is independently verified fact. I would stress that my country Australia, minus the oil spills and carbon emissions, are also terrible polluters, so please don't feel like I am targeting the US on this.


International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 ActivistPoliticianNegotiator 45.3%


+  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  ...Latest (69) »
Sponsored Links:


Add Comment As A Guest
Guest, please be considerate by using the appropriate tags as well as checking your grammar before submitting or it will be deleted. See: Constructive Posting Policy.

# Characters:
0
# Words:
0
# Sentences:
0
# Paragraphs:
0
Reading Time:
0
Optional:
Search

Tip TIP: Press above button ONCE only. If you come back here via the [Back] button on your browser then you will need to click [More Options] button (below) first in order to re-enable your ability to Post.

 
> TOPIC: Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?
 



International Discussions Coded by: BGID®
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 1999-2020
Disclaimer Privacy Report Errors Credits
This site uses Cookies to dispense or record information with regards to your visit. By continuing to use this site you agree to the terms outlined in our Cookies used here: Privacy / Disclaimer,