Close Topic Options

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

Man-made Natural Warming Global

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

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

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.

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

Page 3 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.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

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...

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.

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

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 3

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.

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

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

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:

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").

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.

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?

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.

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.