Global warming... sick of hearing about it, but how about a non BS version?

[GoDrex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

think about it

 

[back2thefutre]

Even if that graph is right, which it is not, I reject the idea that CO2 causes the Earths temperture to rise. Me, I simply reject the idea that temp. are rising altogether. However some say it's the other way around, that in fact rising temp. causes CO2 levels to rise (so think about that.) Furthermore the idea that man is creating a significant amount of CO2 is false. The percent of CO2 that man creates with cars and factories is in the single digits and the Earth itself releases the vast majority of it. Man-made CO2 is only a drop in the bucket. So GW caused by man-made CO2 is pantload.

So why is Al Gore running around creating all this histeria about GW? Well, it was decided at the Club of Rome that ENVIROMENTALISM would be the KEY to convice the world to band together so that they could create a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. And so AL began to propogate the idea that we must come together and fight for Mother Earth, a cause that affects all of us. The genius behind this is two-fold, GW is in fact FALSE and at the same time it CAN'T BE DISPROVEN easily. So all Gore had to do was convice some people that it was true and NOT convice the rest, thus creating this big debate whilst the agenda unfolds. GW is SIMPLY a false pretext to usher in a global government. It's in the name; GLOBAL warming, GLOBAL government. Have you guys noticed that all nations have to pay a Global Warming tax to a GLOBAL entity, the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND or IMF!?! That the EU annouced 2010 as the first year of the Global Government? or that Al himself said at Copenhagen that Global Warming is the best thing to happen for Global Government?

Global Gov. don't sound like a good idea to me. When you see everything they plan to do to humanity it is a disguisting. It is an insidious evil plan.



On the other hand, Global Warmothing sounds great to me :icon_thumright:

 

[Jusatele]

but it might just be a new president being set, you never know, after all we have only been studying it for a short time, hence why do we need to take ice samples?
So, until proved, it is just all theory.
And we all know, you take a liberal, show him any theory that makes him feel bad, and you get a lot of money to study it. It does not matter if it is true or not, because liberals do not listen to truth, just what pulls at their heart.

 

[Mor Paul]

Guys, I'm pretty sure if this gets any more political, Gregg or Wyliee will shut it down and talk with those involved  :icon_thumright:

 

[Jusatele]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

think about it

I have, thought, and decided that column B is the way to go, here is why
if we do nothing and it works, we are just great
if we do nothing and 3/4 of the worlds population is wiped out, possibly myself included, and that sets the world back on track, then we have eliminated one of the biggest reasons this is happening, Over Population of the world taxing the resources.

Basically column A is a Patch, and column B is the solution.

 

[elfro89]

that video is stupid. The guy has a point but thats like saying you might as well start chemotherapy now because the possibility of having cancer exists and the dangers of not acting on it could result in death. That is a silly argument.

 

[Justinginn]

From the BBC article:

"This is done by analysing the presence of different types, or isotopes, of hydrogen atom that are found preferentially in precipitating water (snow) when temperatures are relatively warm."

That sounds doable but there are some difficulties
-Margin of error has to be huge for this. Think about what percent of hydrogen found in water is a different isotope. Now think about how much that's affected by a change in temperature of a few degrees. When you change everything to Kelvin (add 283.whatever), you see how tiny a percent that is. Now try and calculate temperature change based on that from the tiny sample you have in your snow. Brilliant, but I can't imagine that being too accurate.
- It's all from the same area and isn't necessarily representative of the rest of the world
- This specific experiment gives us a change in heat, not CO2. As others have said, we're not really sure which is the cause and which is the effect

Maybe my biggest complaint with this evidence:
- The big jump started more or less when we started measuring ourselves (as in not going back to look at the ice core); the stuff measured in the ice is really different from the stuff we measured with thermometers. That could suggest one of two things: either the temperature jumped or one of the measurements might be biased by any of the above.

Then they do measure the ppm of CO2 in their samples but the same issues as above apply. I think it's a great experiment but it's hard to put a lot faith in.

I don't wanna act like I know everything and certainly not offend anyone. I'm just thinking out loud. For a scientific community to function there has to be a certain level of orthodoxy by which scientists evaluate their findings (which is generally a good thing). However, this can lead to evidence being biased incorrectly if the accepted orthodoxy isn't correct until the whole community gradually changes its mind. I think that's what happens with a lot of the information we get and I guess I wanna bring that thought to the table on this thread.  :dontknow:

 

[elfro89]

From the BBC article:

"This is done by analysing the presence of different types, or isotopes, of hydrogen atom that are found preferentially in precipitating water (snow) when temperatures are relatively warm."

That sounds doable but there are some difficulties
-Margin of error has to be huge for this. Think about what percent of hydrogen found in water is a different isotope. Now think about how much that's affected by a change in temperature of a few degrees. When you change everything to Kelvin (add 283.whatever), you see how tiny a percent that is. Now try and calculate temperature change based on that from the tiny sample you have in your snow. Brilliant, but I can't imagine that being too accurate.
- It's all from the same area and isn't necessarily representative of the rest of the world
- This specific experiment gives us a change in heat, not CO2. As others have said, we're not really sure which is the cause and which is the effect

Maybe my biggest complaint with this evidence:
- The big jump started more or less when we started measuring ourselves (as in not going back to look at the ice core); the stuff measured in the ice is really different from the stuff we measured with thermometers. That could suggest one of two things: either the temperature jumped or one of the measurements might be biased by any of the above.

I don't wanna act like I know everything and certainly not offend anyone. I'm just thinking out loud. For a scientific community to function there has to be a certain level of orthodoxy by which scientists evaluate their findings (which is generally a good thing). However, this can lead to evidence being biased incorrectly if the accepted orthodoxy isn't correct until the whole community gradually changes its mind. I think that's what happens with a lot of the information we get and I guess I wanna bring that thought to the table on this thread.  :dontknow:

I get you man, but that's what progress is all about. You make discoveries and draw conclusions based on available evidence using the scientific method, if something comes along to change or re-evaluate the hypothesis or if the finding is controversial enough re-write a theory, Then that can only lead to a deeper understanding of the subject in question.

 

[Justinginn]

I've got a book for you. Or an excerpt that we had to read this year in Physics. Basically it suggests that scientists don't REALLY use the Scientific Method  :sad: / 

I'll try and dig it up by tomorrow.

 

[elfro89]

Please do!  :icon_biggrin:

 

[GoDrex]

that video is stupid. The guy has a point but thats like saying you might as well start chemotherapy now because the possibility of having cancer exists and the dangers of not acting on it could result in death. That is a silly argument.

:icon_scratch:

is there any evidence that you have cancer? Wow....

I bet you and others here think the moon landings were a hoax.

I'm out - as soon as the "liberal" card is played the conversation is over.

 

[exaN]

that video is stupid. The guy has a point but thats like saying you might as well start chemotherapy now because the possibility of having cancer exists and the dangers of not acting on it could result in death. That is a silly argument.

I don't think it's really the point, I think it's more like if you smoke 3 packs a day, maybe you don't have any evidence of cancer right now but that doesn't mean you can keep smoking without ever risking of getting cancer. I'm not saying the guy's point is the complete truth but in my opinion humanity does need to go cleaner, global warming or not.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

The world has no problem supporting the number of people it has.  The issue is management and corruption.  Why are some of the poorest countries the ones that have some of the most natural resources?  Here, we subsidize people not to grow things.

 

[back2thefutre]

The world has no problem supporting the number of people it has.  The issue is management and corruption.  Why are some of the poorest countries the ones that have some of the most natural resources?  Here, we subsidize people not to grow things.

:icon_thumright:

 

[Jusatele]

that video is stupid. The guy has a point but thats like saying you might as well start chemotherapy now because the possibility of having cancer exists and the dangers of not acting on it could result in death. That is a silly argument.

:icon_scratch:

is there any evidence that you have cancer? Wow....

I bet you and others here think the moon landings were a hoax.

I'm out - as soon as the "liberal" card is played the conversation is over.

oh. com on, conservatives are way past worrying about it, they just deny proof and go on destroying everything for their personal profit, not giving a damn about what they do or destroy.

I just do not give in to gobal warming is man made, it can be accelerated by our use of carbon fuels or our denuding the planet of vegetation, but it is a natural thing, been warming since the last ice age, and will warm till it starts to cool into the next ice age. We can do nothing about it but adapt or go extinct.

The human race will one day go extinct, such as all past lifeforms on this planet. It is the natural order, When it happens, it will be our time. For us to think that we are bove such is pretty stupid. My god we are an intelligent species, look at the history of most lifeforms on this planet, something happened to the environment and they went extinct. Why do we think we will be any different?

It is just a matter of time, the only thing that has been a constant since life first form has been death.

 

[elfro89]

that video is stupid. The guy has a point but thats like saying you might as well start chemotherapy now because the possibility of having cancer exists and the dangers of not acting on it could result in death. That is a silly argument.

:icon_scratch:

is there any evidence that you have cancer? Wow....

I bet you and others here think the moon landings were a hoax.

I'm out - as soon as the "liberal" card is played the conversation is over.

Amazing. I think you should tell me what else I believe in.  :binkybaby:

 

[Wyliee]

Guys, I'm pretty sure if this gets any more political, Gregg or Wyliee will shut it down and talk with those involved  :icon_thumright:

Correct.  I've been monitoring the thread.  If you want to talk science, cool.  Start the political mud slinging and the thread will go away.

 

[Paul-less]

Life is a hoax! They made it all up! You're not really reading this, NOR are you actually sitting there! THE MATRIX WILL BE DISCOVERED!

 

[Jusatele]

DARN, RIGHT WHEN I WAS ABOUT TO INTRODUCE RELIGION TO THE FOLD

 

[Kadmium]

Correct.  I've been monitoring the thread.  If you want to talk science, cool.  Start the political mud slinging and the thread will go away.

That was probably always going to happen with a thread like this, because the idea that climate change is in debate is a political idea, not a scientific one. The science is clear, and apart from a vocal minority, pretty much undebated - the Earth is getting hotter, and it's because of human influence. The idea that legitimate scientists are arguing about whether or not it's going on is purely a political idea. It's pretty much split like this:

Don't be drawn into the trap of thinking that because there are two points of view, they are equally valid. They are not, and do not deserve equal consideration.