Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) This was moved to the Premium Section because it is a debate. Please, it isn't that hard to type 'You' or capitalize 'I' or spell 'hate'.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) Wasn't that a rule from the actual debate thread? Or does this still have the same rules?
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) Oh, ok, I didn't know. I thought it was moved just because people were like flaming or something.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth This is both right, and wrong... the media, as is usually the case, over-exaggerates many issues (global warming included). Yes, it is true that the earth goes through cycles, and this is just another phase. No one argues against this...even Gore himself. However, what he, and others, DO argue is that this particular stage of the cycle is far more drastic than has been in previous cycles. That is a documented fact. It will produce more rainfall, but it will not be beneficial to our environment. The melting of the polar ice caps has a great effect on our weather here on earth. The ice melting into our oceans disrupts the natural flow of our ocean currents. As you probably know, ocean currents control the weather. Disrupting these cycles (the mixing of cool and warm waters) produces weather extremes around the world. It causes more violent storms (tsunamis, hurricanes) in some areas of the world, along with desertification in other areas. I can go deeper into it if you wish, Id have to re-do some research though for more specifics. theres also several other detrimental effects global warming has on our earth. I could go into Polar Bears, Pine Bark Beetles and deforestation also.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth I think I like you a little bit more now. Another note for ya, people always say "but what about the Artic, its melting". Funny thing, it turns out that under the ice in the Artic there is TONS of hydrothermal activity. which would cause the ice to melt. Oddly enough, the increase in hydrothermal activity is caused why the crust shrinking, putting pressure on the mantle, and the cause of this, in the crust and like many other things, is caused by cooling. Does that mean that we are going to head into another ice age??? People like Al Gore say that when all the ice melts, we will have gain 20+ feet of water {some groups say 70 feet}, but Physics say different. We all know ice has a 1/10th larger mass than water so is there enough melting ice to get that? No, there is not. Oh also Antarctica has a gain of ice/snow pact every year, not a lose. And yes, the sun is getting hotter. We may not help global warming but its nature, not man that causes it. I do not like polution and conserving energy is a good idea, but we are not the cause of this problem.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) That is true, global warming is due to naturally occurring events. However, we have sped it up. As such, we are obligated to slow it down.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) This post was moved for what you are doing now. i.e: saying something completely useless to the discussion, which has no proof or sources to back it up... I have said this about 5 times already and no one has listned. Also, when we burn coal it releases alot of sulphur, this is a major contributer to acid rain, which damaged buildings and forests. Someone posted earlier that global warming would produce more rain. Tie these 2 things together and you have something very bad for the environment.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) If your talking about the north Atlantic current, do two things. exit this topic and please for the love of god do some actual research (almost all scientists agree the "Day After Tomorrow" scenario is impossible). I apologize, but acid rain isn't exactly that "big" for lack of a better word, of a problem. If Global Warming was real then we'd have much more to worry about.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) Does anyone here know how the global warming myth started? I do. The queen of england many years back fabricated this to get support for making nuclear power plants. It was created so that Great britain would gain support from its public to change from fossil fuels to nuclear power, yes, it was created by the queen of england, NOT SCIENTISTS! Next, the only reason scientists agree with it is because they are being payed to. If they don't agree they will get fired or lose funding from their sponcering organizations. Politics blows it up because it is a way for them to get elected. next, this is a little more scientific. Though, very simple... OK everyone, what do animals breathe? Oxygen, right? What do they breathe out? CO2, a "greenhouse gas". Now plants do the opposite right? Have you every heard of limiting factors, those are the restrictions on life by their surroundings. Its like a factory, lets say that the factory can produce 100 cars a day but they only get materials to make 80, they ONLY make 80 cars. They same is with life. More CO2 in the air= more CO2 for plants= more plant growth= more CO2 use= more oxygen in the air= less plants. AKA nature can fix itself. We don't affect it as much as we all think, one eruption of a volcano has put out more CO2 than all of mankind in all existence. Case and point: We need to REALLY try to F-up Earth.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) Ummm.. I not sure I really understand that logic. You compared the CO2 emissions to the production of a car company. Well what if of those 80 cars that are produced, only 70 of them are actually used by people. What happens to the other 10? Same goes with the CO2. Sure the plants breathe CO2, but can they consume as much as is created and distributed?
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) Yes they can. Its a late discovery but the more CO2 that is present in the air, the more that plants intake. although it isnt a total solution.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) I actually have done a good amount of research for several different classes over the past 3-4 years, as well as just doing some research for myself, because i find the topic very interesting. i never saw the day after tomorrow movie, didnt really care much for it... however, I'm not talking about worldwide simultaneous catastrophes, just the increased frequency of violent storms in different parts of the world. Not only is this possible, it has been happening already for some time. The number of intense storms in the U.S. alone has increased by almost 25% over the past couple decades. Now I'm not talking about an increase in only storms, but also an increase in more intense periods of drought and desertification, most notably in Northern Africa. See lake Chad, who's size was roughly 20 times larger in the 1960s for a start. Also, don't start a thread about a controversial issue then take condescending tones with those opposed to your personal opinion.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) Yah I'm sure that is possible.. Though also sure that there is a limit to the amount that they can intake.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) This is a prime example of the reason why I am generally avoiding this thread. I don't know who told you this complete pile of rubbish, but I do know that you obviously believe that The Queen has any power in England. Saying that The Queen made this statement and that everyone went along with it because she rules us is ignorant stereotyping. Other comments I might give are that this statement shows a vast degree of naivety, stupidity and ignorance. I'm sorry. 1. That is a disgraceful blanket statement to attribute to people who are committing their entire working lives to such research and I would dearly like to see your evidence for this. 2. Politicians make a big deal out of environmental issues for the sake of PR, but at the end of the day the vast majority of people vote based on taxation and their own personal livelihood. Politicians pay lip-service to science in general and I encourage you to regain some perspective on how the world is actually run. That is an appalling comparison, considering that one of these such events you refer to is 'The Great Dying' which predicated a 75% extinction rate. To claim that we won't release that much CO2 into the atmosphere and as a result it'll all be OK is remarkably short sighted and indicates an utter black-or-white and/or simplistic analysis and opinon. I may not be back for a while. Can everyone please behave like premiums are supposed to.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) I have been trying to avoid this topic too, because people like ferret have basically said something bad about every post supporting global warming, and cutting back on carbon emissions. Its okay if you dont believe in global warming, but dont try to make others not believe in it. People are entitled to believing in global warming, and if it makes them cut back on emissions, why can't they. In my opinion, global warming is very real, but if it isn't, I dont care. It is making people enviromentally aware, and are changing theirs ways to help the enviroment, and I dont see any problem in that.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) By no means do I think that we should just ignore our polluting problem, I am just saying that we do not cause very much difference. I believe global warming is a scam BUT cutting back on emissions is NOT a bad thing, it is still harmful, just not "end the world" harmful, there are many other environmental problems we should be worrying about... Oh and to add, and my science teacher gave me this info, actually no, it was from an official video of a REAL experiment. Humans and other animal life will NOT be affected by up to 4x the current amount of CO2 in the air. Plant life did sprout though, it helped the plants growth and sped up its growing process. This was done in two chambers, each got the same light, soil, and nutrients, the only difference was that one had 4x more CO2. I know that not ALL scientists only support it because of funding, but lets face it, you would rather take more money and support it. This is a TRUE story: This archaeologist in Mexico got FIRED because she found a skull that was carbon dated to before humans supposedly came to the Americas. The place she worked for didn't reveal this information. Why wouldn't the same apply to scientists researching global warming? Ok, I don't know if my sources about the roots of global warming are completely accurate, and I don't think that this point matters enough to spend hours trying to find a source for, so disregard it.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) I apologize, I'm used to people spaming this thread (if you read the last couple of pages you will see why) and I assumed that you were being ignorant. I should not have and once again I apologize. Then you will know that the climate models that predict these storms are inaccurate at best and might as well be used to predict Martian weather for all the good they do. Credit given though even the IPCC admits they have a large margin of error, though not as large as they most likely do. An easy way to think of it. If we cant with certainty predict the events of the next weak (weather wise) then how can we attempt to for the next century. The point of most debates--certainly this one. is to attempt to prove your view right, the purpose of that action is to convince others to follow your belief. or at least to recognize there is another. If I do not attempt to call out anything I see that is "bad" then I am not doing my duty not only to me but also to you. that said I believe helping the environment would be good if not for the detrimental effects it would have on the economy. If someone came up with a realistic clean energy source that could realistically replace oil I would be all for it, but the haven't. So please do not accuse me of being a nay sayer. Shock Tha\eta has pointed out the flaws in my statements, as have many others, this has required me to do further research in order to defend them. I created this thread to be a learning experience, and I ask nothing more from anyone who posts here then to help me learn, as I will do the same. The way to do that is to point out their arguments flaws.
Re: Global Warming (Moved from General Chat) coyote, that is a suprising story, and it disgusts me that they would cover up evidence that could help research the origins of humanity. But that problem is a little different than global warming. The skull that was found probably contradicted with religous beliefs of Christianity, the largest religion in the world. A superior of that scientist was probably very religious and was afraid that the evidence would harm his religion. In the case of scientists covering up info, I dont think that would be as likely, because global warming has a huge group of people supporting it (like Christianity) and I'm sure that more people would support the evidence. Ferret, I am glad that you do want more for renewable resources, but I think that the economy should embrace these ideas, so hey can be helpful to the economy, a change to a renewable resource like hydrogen will take time, I dont expect all the gas stations to immediately change to hydrogen, but the change into renewable resources is slowly happening as more cars are coming out as hybrids, running on E85, or being fuel cell. CFLs (compact fluorescent light bulbs) are major environental sellers, they last ten times longer than regular light bulbs, and use 75% less energy. Last year Walmart pledged to se 100 million cfls, and reached that goal three months early. They also announced that soon they will be no longer selling incandescent bulbs. In China the plastic bag has been banned,and in Ireland you have to pay 22 cents more if you dont use a paper, or reuseable bag. At trader joes they sell reuseable bags. as you can see, one reason that being eco friendly is seeming like such a great idea is that it can save the consumer money. So I think that being Eco friendly can help the economy rather than ruin it if it supports these products. Bonus fact: if every home I. America replaced one bulb with a CFL, I. Would cut back 75% of the emission goal set by the Kyoto Protocol.