Thread: Global Warming

The temperature of the earth is always changing but it has never had to deal to humans like it has to now.

I don't see why people need concrete evidence for a possible issue as serious as this. The hints alone should be enough to start taking some measures.

Originally Posted by blade5x

The temperature of the earth is always changing but it has never had to deal to humans like it has to now.

I don't see why people need concrete evidence for a possible issue as serious as this. The hints alone should be enough to start taking some measures.[/b]

We wouldn't need concrete evidence for it if we didn't have concrete evidence against it....

EDIT: I found some graphs for you people who are too lazy or ignorant to watch the video.

CO2 vs temperature.



Hmm.... that looks like its quite similar....


But, not quite matching



Sunspot vs. Temp



Woah! one seems to be leading the other...

Published today by the New Scientist

http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

"26 most common climate myths and misconceptions"

US 'opposes' G8 climate proposals

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6694227.stm


*edit*
btw, I'm not sure if I should be worried or relieved that there's been no comments after the New Scientist article, here....

Originally Posted by Ynot

Published today by the New Scientist

http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

"26 most common climate myths and misconceptions"

Hey, great article, thanks for posting that. Goes in my favorites folder.

This "war on science" lately is really saddening, how a bunch of idiots can spew out pseudo-scientific crap, and people believe it and start reinforcing the mudslide of crap and lies. : /

Not something new, but lately I see it a lot in both anti-global-warming and in anti-evolution camps. Just outright false statements passed on as facts. <=/

Neruo, check out this mudslide...

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...ming-consensus

Read the credentials. Those are not exactly fruit salads the police found talking to walls in the French Quarter.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Neruo, check out this mudslide...

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...ming-consensus

Read the credentials. Those are not exactly fruit salads the police found talking to walls in the French Quarter.

Barely. There are a few good scientist opposing far-fetched theories about global warming. What you fail to see is that people criticizing some flaws in the bullcrap out there about global warming, doesn't mean those people don't realize we, mankind, actually do have an increasingly growing impact on nature and climate.

At least to me, this man doesn't sound like he doesn't believe in the same global warming I suspect is real:

"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."

What this "answers.com" page does, is put a few random quotes of a few scientists together, what just proves that not everything that is said is true. It by no length means that all of global warming is made up.

Besides that, I don't see any form of refusal about the new pole caps expectations. As in: The shit (ice) is melting badly, and despite the reason, we (lol the Netherlands) are getting pretty Wet in the near future, like in 50 years I read in some article.

Just because a few scientists disagree on a few points on the global warming theory, you call it all bogus. Can't you see the thousands of scientists that Do see a certain risk in global warming? What you are doing is like what creationists are doing, saying evolution is nonsense because a certain part of it is argued upon by 'respected' scientists.

Still, not wasting oil, gas and other natural resources, and not burning and polluting the shit out of everything Has no down sides. Not on economical (in the medium-/long-run), not on public health, not on anything. I don't see your reasons for having such a hostile stance, a "Oh No, I heard to was bullcrap so we shouldn't pay attention to it at all"-attitude towards such a serious topic. Do you really need that SUV to finish your ego or something?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ng+documentary

i found this documentary interesting.