Climate Change Expo - the west should feel ashamed

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="aransom"]Since the rest of the world is just trying to take the United States down a peg, I don't give a rip how sad they are.

aransom

What inhabitable environment is being self-destructed? And if it was being self-destructed, like you say, how is that the economy's fault.

aransom

That's quite factually incorrect to be honest. Ice caps shift all the time. In a particularly cold season shipping can become impossible; the next season it's fine. Let's not confuse basic weather patterns with global warming issues. My point right here. "Let's not confuse basic weather patterns with global warming." Nobody can say that this isn't part of the natural cycle. This whole global warming idea has come up in such a short timespan that it's far too early for us to be declaring it a fact. thirty years ago scientists were claiming that there would be ice age in the early 21st century. That argument shifted to global warming, and with such a lack of stability, it makes such matters difficult to be proven as undeniable fact.

If it were a natural process, it would take place over a very long time. 15 years is far too short a period for the earth to undergo a dramatic change in climate all on its own. Where did all that extra heat come from? It didn't just happen on its own. It's no mere coincidence that ice started melting as the world became more industrialized than ever, with the rise of the plane and the car.

Well, with CO2 emissions increasing by 2-3 ppm each year (at 380 ppm as of 2007), and each previous year having a total less than that of 2007, it's tough to really say that global warming has entirely taken place in 15 years. It just shows how young this argument is. It also shows that extrapolation really isn't the best method when you're using data from such a small timeframe.

Doctor-McNinja

refusal to commit to something we could easily achieve because it was a litle inconvenient at the time? Doctor-McNinja

I wont quote to save the confusion, but here are some points; The point put forward by scientists is the exact opposite of what you said, more or less. You're saying it's happened in too short a space of time to say it's man-made, but it's the opposite. The very fact that it's happened so quickly is exactly what makes it appear unnatural. Many natural changes occur to the earth, but almost all of them have something in common; they take a very long time. Like i said before, a dramatic change in the earth's temperature has occured in just 15 years. In terms of global, natural changes, that's a minuscule amount of time. And like i said, where did all that heat come from if this is indeed just a natural 'cycle'?
My second point was more in line with the whole idea of CO2 being a major roleplayer in "global warming." If that's the case, then having a steady increase for the last 15 years of less than 2ppm would not be the cause when the total amount in the atmosphere is so high as it is (and without counting the years prior and some of the missing data). It just raises further questions about the whole issue and specifically CO2's role in it. Like with lab experiments done on a small scale, extrapolated data doesn't sit well with me.

For me, the worst thing about this whole issue is the pointless arguing back and forth about how proven it is. I can respect that some people are skeptics, but it's the arguing and bickering which is the enemy of progress. If this does turn out to be a problem, how will we feel looking back on all the squabbling and refusal to commit to something we could easily achieve because it was a litle inconvenient at the time? This is hardly a mad, unproven proposition. The scientific community has no reason to be so united on something which has no factual basis. You make it sound as if it's about a 50/50 split of pro and against, but that isn't the case. The evidence is overwhelming. There are holes, there are problems, there are unanswered questions, but squabbling isn't going to achieve anything.
That's why this is a forum and not an actual debate. If this was a real government/political debate, I'm sure I'd rule in favor of global warming just for the sole fact that there's more evidence for it. I just prefer to play the skeptic and point out issues with people's theories. :P

Personally, I like being 100% sure of something before committing numerous resources to what could be a waste, which is why I'd want the holes and unanswered questions ironed out before taking any serious action.
Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]I wont quote to save the confusion, but here are some points; The point put forward by scientists is the exact opposite of what you said, more or less. You're saying it's happened in too short a space of time to say it's man-made, but it's the opposite. The very fact that it's happened so quickly is exactly what makes it appear unnatural. Many natural changes occur to the earth, but almost all of them have something in common; they take a very long time. Like i said before, a dramatic change in the earth's temperature has occured in just 15 years. In terms of global, natural changes, that's a minuscule amount of time. And like i said, where did all that heat come from if this is indeed just a natural 'cycle'?
My second point was more in line with the whole idea of CO2 being a major roleplayer in "global warming." If that's the case, then having a steady increase for the last 15 years of less than 2ppm would not be the cause when the total amount in the atmosphere is so high as it is (and without counting the years prior and some of the missing data). It just raises further questions about the whole issue.

For me, the worst thing about this whole issue is the pointless arguing back and forth about how proven it is. I can respect that some people are skeptics, but it's the arguing and bickering which is the enemy of progress. If this does turn out to be a problem, how will we feel looking back on all the squabbling and refusal to commit to something we could easily achieve because it was a litle inconvenient at the time? This is hardly a mad, unproven proposition. The scientific community has no reason to be so united on something which has no factual basis. You make it sound as if it's about a 50/50 split of pro and against, but that isn't the case. The evidence is overwhelming. There are holes, there are problems, there are unanswered questions, but squabbling isn't going to achieve anything.
That's why this is a forum and not an actual debate. If this was a real government/political debate, I'm sure I'd rule in favor of global warming just for the sole fact that there's more evidence for it. I just prefer to play the skeptic and point out issues with people's theory. :P

Personally, I like being 100% sure of something before committing numerous resources to what could be a waste, which is why I'd want the holes and unanswered questions ironed out before taking any serious action.
Saturos3091

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]refusal to commit to something we could easily achieve because it was a litle inconvenient at the time? aransom

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"]refusal to commit to something we could easily achieve because it was a litle inconvenient at the time? Doctor-McNinja

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="aransom"]You're free to inconvenience yourself all you want, but you also want to force the 'inconveniences' on other people.

aransom

Hitler was real, man-made climate change is a socialist scam.

aransom

SO, we'd be wasting resources by promoting environmentalism? I really don't think so. In fact environmentalism is the conservation of resources.. there is no waste involved if it's an honest effort.

EMOEVOLUTION

Holding a conference where everyone says they are gonna do something is nowhere close to actually doing something. That whole green expo was just a bunch of PR BS.

Holding a conference where everyone says they are gonna do something is nowhere close to actually doing something. That whole green expo was just a bunch of PR BS.

clubsammich91

I don't like how they acted like manmade climate change was true. People aren't that gullible. Their support was dwindling, no?
Of course if it isn't true it still wouldn't hurt to think of the environment and i hope the convention was about more than just the CO2 church.
What i'm worried about more is how their plans would affect our lives. Are they going to dig further into our personal lives to make sure we are good law and environment obeding citizens?

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="aransom"]Since the rest of the world is just trying to take the United States down a peg, I don't give a rip how sad they are.

aransom

That's actually a fallacy. Not only does creating a new green industry stimulate the economy, but the number one cost to America over the past half a century has been oil prices, making ourselves oil independent is a stimulus that will continue to pay off for years to come.

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"] Oh please do go on to explain how that is the case. :? theone86

That's actually a fallacy. Not only does creating a new green industry stimulate the economy, but the number one cost to America over the past half a century has been oil prices, making ourselves oil independent is a stimulus that will continue to pay off for years to come.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="aransom"]Whatever agreement that these guys come up with will hurt the US economy.

KungfuKitten

That's actually a fallacy. Not only does creating a new green industry stimulate the economy, but the number one cost to America over the past half a century has been oil prices, making ourselves oil independent is a stimulus that will continue to pay off for years to come.

I agree, but if the argument is that climate responsibility is coming at the U.S.'s expense that counterpoint would only strengthen it. I can't be sure, but I don't think aransom is particularly concernedwith developing nations. I still like my idea the best, switch any material that can be constructed out of hemp or hemp oil (synthetics, clothing, fuel, paper, building materials, fuel, etc.) to hemp and task impoverished nations with growin hemp so we can import it. The hemp ethanol industry alone would be an enourmous stimulus to those nations, and could you imagine if the entire western world switched to hemp ethanol and hemp ethanol hybrids? Plus it would easily cut our dependence on foreign oil and probably make the use of the substance obsolete, which is definitely a good thing.