It's all a scheme for money and political points and for enviroMENTALists to get what they want. I'm tired of these threads.
dunl12496
There is another side to that. Anti climate change is all a scheme for money and political points and for industrialists to keep what they have. I'm not saying their aren't people trying to make money off green tech. But there are people making a lot more money by continuing to pollute than there is to make off the green movement. In fact, a lot of environmentalists aren't motivated by money at all.
It's all a scheme for money and political points and for enviroMENTALists to get what they want. I'm tired of these threads.
dunl12496
How exactly, does climate change make people money on such a huge scale? People keep bringing this up. The biggest companies in the world are oil companies - those who do not believe in climate change.
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]But it is enough of a plausible outcome that a commonly used component of countless consumer products was banned. The science is good enough to support the claim.Vandalvideo
No, not really. It is a logical leap to go from correlation to causation. This is a problem I have with many scientists. They delude themselves into thinking their extravagant, overly glorified post hoc ergo proctor hocs are undisputable facts. The mere probability of something is insufficient to estabilsh it as a certain fact. You may act on uncertainty, but don't have so much hubris that you're unwilling to recognize that you could easily be wrong. "an ounce of prevention is is worth a pound of cure."
an ounce of prevention is is worth a pound of cure.Darthmatt
Assuming that what you're truly doing is prevention in the first place. This is the problem that results when you take scientific studies as undisputed facts. You could very well be causing irrepairable harm that, given current scientific innadequacy, we are completely unable to predict at this time. Your removal of CFCs from common house hold products could end up killing us all at some indefinite point in the future. It is the height of hubris for you to claim that what you're doing is objectively good. You simply do not know. It is the same problem I have with people who send food aid to Africa. Yeah, you're feeding them now and you may feel good about it, but you could only be exacerbating their potential problems. Sending food could be an inhumane gesture over a long period of time.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] No, not really. It is a logical leap to go from correlation to causation. This is a problem I have with many scientists. They delude themselves into thinking their extravagant, overly glorified post hoc ergo proctor hocs are undisputable facts. The mere probability of something is insufficient to estabilsh it as a certain fact. You may act on uncertainty, but don't have so much hubris that you're unwilling to recognize that you could easily be wrong. Looking at the chemical reactions alone says CFC gases will affect the amount of ozone in the atmosphere.
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]an ounce of prevention is is worth a pound of cure.Vandalvideo
Assuming that what you're truly doing is prevention in the first place. This is the problem that results when you take scientific studies as undisputed facts. You could very well be causing irrepairable harm that, given current scientific innadequacy, we are completely unable to predict at this time. Your removal of CFCs from common house hold products could end up killing us all at some indefinite point in the future. It is the height of hubris for you to claim that what you're doing is objectively good. You simply do not know. It is the same problem I have with people who send food aid to Africa. Yeah, you're feeding them now and you may feel good about it, but you could only be exacerbating their potential problems. Sending food could be an inhumane gesture over a long period of time.This is a joke right? CFC is a man made compound, hence they do not belong in the atmosphere in the first place. So you're claim that future humanity could be doomed without it's presence is a moot point. As I said, CFCs have a catalytic reaction with ozone, effectively destroying the ozone molecules they contact with while the CFC remains intact. Its not conjecture, its freaking chemistry.
CFCs also can stay in the atmosphere for 1000's of years and have a much worse effect on global warming than carbon dioxide does. However this is not the reason why they were banned. They were banned because of the role they played in the destruction of the ozone. Which they know as fact due to chemistry. Just as they know the effects carbon dioxide has in the atmosphere due to chemistry.
It's a good thing all these global warming deniers are here to tell us how wrong the entire science community is. Whatever would we do without them?Acemaster27
yes. Thank God for them keeping all these rogue scientists in line. *shakes fist in air*
This is a joke right? CFC is a man made compound, hence they do not belong in the atmosphere in the first place. So you're claim that future humanity could be doomed without it's presence is a moot point. As I said, CFCs have a catalytic reaction with ozone, effectively destroying the ozone molecules they contact with while the CFC remains intact. Its not conjecture, its freaking chemistry.Darthmatt
It does not follow that merely because man makes something that it does not belong in the environment. Especially if that something is and of itself using a base natural compound. You're going to have to do more than that to show that CFCs affect the environment. My claim wasn't that the future of humanity would be doomed without it, but that it most assuredly COULD be doomed. You have not ruled this out. All of the sciences, even Chemistry, relies on correlation.
[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]This is a joke right? CFC is a man made compound, hence they do not belong in the atmosphere in the first place. So you're claim that future humanity could be doomed without it's presence is a moot point. As I said, CFCs have a catalytic reaction with ozone, effectively destroying the ozone molecules they contact with while the CFC remains intact. Its not conjecture, its freaking chemistry.Vandalvideo
It does not follow that merely because man makes something that it does not belong in the environment. Especially if that something is and of itself using a base natural compound. You're going to have to do more than that to show that CFCs affect the environment. My claim wasn't that the future of humanity would be doomed without it, but that it most assuredly COULD be doomed. You have not ruled this out. All of the sciences, even Chemistry, relies on correlation.Ozone uses a base natural compound that is needed by humans to survive yet it is poisonous to humans. Everything that is man-made has natural compounds. However, those natural compounds often come with various effects that destroy other natural compounds. If those man-made compounds enter somewhere in the atmosphere where they are not suppose ot be quite often they will have an effect on that area of the environment. Ozone is known to halt most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. You know, the same radiation that gives us sunburns and skin cancer. The exact same technique I described before concernign global warming and how it occurs can be used for ozone. The ozone absoprbs certain wavelengths of radiation and re-radiates it back into space. This has been tested and ios repeatable and provable. The chemical reaction between CFCs and O3 is also testable, repeatable and provable. That is exactly the reason why there is a mass movement to rid the world of CFCs.
Ozone uses a base natural compound that is needed by humans to survive yet it is poisonous to humans. Everything that is man-made has natural compounds. However, those natural compounds often come with various effects that destroy other natural compounds. If those man-made compounds enter somewhere in the atmosphere where they are not suppose ot be quite often they will have an effect on that area of the environment. Ozone is known to halt most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. You know, the same radiation that gives us sunburns and skin cancer. The exact same technique I described before concernign global warming and how it occurs can be used for ozone. The ozone absoprbs certain wavelengths of radiation and re-radiates it back into space. This has been tested and ios repeatable and provable. The chemical reaction between CFCs and O3 is also testable, repeatable and provable. That is exactly the reason why there is a mass movement to rid the world of CFCs.BumFluff122
Some man made compounds =/= all. The mere fact that something is man made does not necessitate it will harm the environment, like was hinted at by DarthMatt. So his claim that it being manmade = it being bad is not necessarily true. Oh, and I'm well aware of how they 'test' the interaction between CFCs and O3. They measure the observed impact of X amount of CFCs on X amount of O3 over X period of time. The problem with any scientific venture is that it relies purely on correlation, and is insufficient to establish causation. The mere fact that O3 degredation occurs after X amount of CFCs are added does not necessitate that it is truly the CFCs causing the degredation of the O3. Also, the mere fact that you repeat an experiment over and over does not increase the likelyhood that it is correct. That is known as the maturation of chances fallacy. If I flip a coin a million times and it lands heads 999,999 times, that absolutely, positively does not effect the chances that it will land heads the next time. Ad infinitum, the chances that it hits heads are still 50.50. So the mere fact that something happens over and over does not necessitate it being true. It could be a fluk of quantum indeterminancy.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Ozone uses a base natural compound that is needed by humans to survive yet it is poisonous to humans. Everything that is man-made has natural compounds. However, those natural compounds often come with various effects that destroy other natural compounds. If those man-made compounds enter somewhere in the atmosphere where they are not suppose ot be quite often they will have an effect on that area of the environment. Ozone is known to halt most of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. You know, the same radiation that gives us sunburns and skin cancer. The exact same technique I described before concernign global warming and how it occurs can be used for ozone. The ozone absoprbs certain wavelengths of radiation and re-radiates it back into space. This has been tested and ios repeatable and provable. The chemical reaction between CFCs and O3 is also testable, repeatable and provable. That is exactly the reason why there is a mass movement to rid the world of CFCs.Vandalvideo
Some man made compounds =/= all. The mere fact that something is man made does not necessitate it will harm the environment, like was hinted at by DarthMatt. So his claim that it being manmade = it being bad is not necessarily true. Oh, and I'm well aware of how they 'test' the interaction between CFCs and O3. They measure the observed impact of X amount of CFCs on X amount of O3 over X period of time. The problem with any scientific venture is that it relies purely on correlation, and is insufficient to establish causation. The mere fact that O3 degredation occurs after X amount of CFCs are added does not necessitate that it is truly the CFCs causing the degredation of the O3. Also, the mere fact that you repeat an experiment over and over does not increase the likelyhood that it is correct. That is known as the maturation of chances fallacy. If I flip a coin a million times and it lands heads 999,999 times, that absolutely, positively does not effect the chances that it will land heads the next time. Ad infinitum, the chances that it hits heads are still 50.50. So the mere fact that something happens over and over does not necessitate it being true. It could be a fluk of quantum indeterminancy.If something is purely man-made it is not natural to that environment in which it is in. Everything will have soem effect on the environment. Whether that effect is merely the replacement of an unimportant molecule that could be in it's place or the effect of chemically altering other needed molecules it is still an effect whether it's good or bad. I agree that not ever man-made substance is neccessarily bad for the environment. However, it still does not belong in that environment by natural processes. All science relies on probability.
If something is purely man-made it is not natural to that environment in which it is in. Everything will have soem effect on the environment. Whether that effect is merely the replacement of an unimportant molecule that could be in it's place or the effect of chemically altering other needed molecules it is still an effect whether it's good or bad. I agree that not ever man-made substance is neccessarily bad for the environment. However, it still does not belong in that environment by natural processes. All science relies on probability.BumFluff122
If I were to grab a Banana and a grape and tie it together with a peice of fiber from a celery root, that would be man made but still purely natural. But that is beside the point. My main focus was on DarthMatt's assumption that merely becaue something = man made it is bad. That, as you agree, is wrong. And I'm well aware that science relies on probabilities. What I find is the problem is that people tend to take those probabilities as absolute fact. They really should know better. It seems alot of people suffer from the maturation of chances fallacy.
i think global warming is a joke people trying to get rich off books and other stuff its just sad.
BumFluff122
Yes. The only reason why this global warming phiasco is on us and all these hundreds of thousands of scientists agree with it is because they all want to sell books on it. I completely agree.
Yeah, that's what they it's a fony on CNN. damm, now I know.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]If something is purely man-made it is not natural to that environment in which it is in. Everything will have soem effect on the environment. Whether that effect is merely the replacement of an unimportant molecule that could be in it's place or the effect of chemically altering other needed molecules it is still an effect whether it's good or bad. I agree that not ever man-made substance is neccessarily bad for the environment. However, it still does not belong in that environment by natural processes. All science relies on probability.Vandalvideo
If I were to grab a Banana and a grape and tie it together with a peice of fiber from a celery root, that would be man made but still purely natural. But that is beside the point. My main focus was on DarthMatt's assumption that merely becaue something = man made it is bad. That, as you agree, is wrong. And I'm well aware that science relies on probabilities. What I find is the problem is that people tend to take those probabilities as absolute fact. They really should know better. It seems alot of people suffer from the maturation of chances fallacy.Probabilities in certain circumstances are basically fact and should be treated as such. There is a slight chance that gravity will make us go up instead of down. There is a slight chance that reality isn't, as you believe, all about sesory perception but something deeper and non-sensory. If science took all that is possible and added them into certain equations nothing would be figured out at all. No scientific advancement would ever occur. Microwaves work on the probability that radiation will cook certain types of food and not mutate it into a speedily growing man-eating fungus but we still use them. Science is abotu observation however. If we observe somethign to occur with 100% accuracy over 100,000 trials chances are it will occur that way indefinatly or at least until an outside influence effects it.
global warming is BS. There was a study done recently saying that we are basically going into a mini ice age for the next decade or two.The winters will be colder, and the summers cooler. Al Gore uses absurd amounts of energy..I think we all know what is really going on here...
Global warming is most likely BS. Thirty years ago they were saying that there was gonna be another ice age. The earth gets hot, then it gets cold, then it gets hot again etc etc.
global warming is BS. There was a study done recently saying that we are basically going into a mini ice age for the next decade or two.The winters will be colder, and the summers cooler. Al Gore uses absurd amounts of energy..I think we all know what is really going on here...Stanley09
A link to this study would be great. I've never heard anything concerning it and I read a lot about climate change. Regardless, because Al Gore, one of the many supporters of man-made climate change, is a polluter does not in any way mean that the science behind climate change is faulty. What it does mean is that he is a polluter, nothing more.
Global warming is most likely BS. Thirty years ago they were saying that there was gonna be another ice age. The earth gets hot, then it gets cold, then it gets hot again etc etc.
Jipset
And, as stated previously, man-made global warming is not based on averages of the past. It's based off of the scientific evidence provided previously in this thread concernign the blocking of longer wavelength radiation absorbed and re-emited by land surface. It's not based on Al Gore and his need of money. It's based off of chemistry and physics.
Global warming is most likely BS. Thirty years ago they were saying that there was gonna be another ice age. The earth gets hot, then it gets cold, then it gets hot again etc etc.
BumFluff122
And, as stated previously, man-made global warming is not based on averages of the past. It's based off of the scientific evidence provided previously in this thread concernign the blocking of longer wavelength radiation absorbed and re-emited by land surface. It's not based on Al Gore and his need of money. It's based off of chemistry and physics. These people don't believe in science, only Glen Beck.
[QUOTE="Stanley09"]global warming is BS. There was a study done recently saying that we are basically going into a mini ice age for the next decade or two.The winters will be colder, and the summers cooler. Al Gore uses absurd amounts of energy..I think we all know what is really going on here...BumFluff122
A link to this study would be great. I've never heard anything concerning it and I read a lot about climate change. Regardless, because Al Gore, one of the many supporters of man-made climate change, is a polluter does not in any way mean that the science behind climate change is faulty. What it does mean is that he is a polluter, nothing more. I have not heard about any studies on this mini ice age but didn't Al Gore mention in An Incovenient Truth that global warming could cause an ice age in europe due to the cooling of water in the atlantic from Greenland?
1. No one believes in Global Warming anymore, it's called Climate Change and it is a very real threat. 2. Climate Change is still caused by man so we still need to make many sacrifices. 3. If we don't we're going have an ice age because big dumb rednecks did not want to give up their trucks. Get with the times. :lol:
[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Whatever, im changing my argument. Regardless of how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere nothing is going to happen. Like i said before the Jurassic period had FAR more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do now. And guess what? There was still life on this planet. Humans would be able to survive that temperature. The whole "Global warming is dangerous" is just wrong, its not. Nothing will happen to us. BumFluff122
I know this, as do the scientists that actually study this. Do you know what coral bleaching is? Coral Bleaching. Coral Bleaching is the whitening of the corals due to stress or death. One of the factors contributing to this is a change in ocean temperature. Coral bleachign has been occurring more and more as temperatures increase. If temperatures increase far enough this will happen to many fo the coral species of the ocean. The great coral reefs, which it is estimated that 1 out of every 4 marine species use in some way at some point of their lives, will have become extinct and the ecosystem that depends on them will either die out or have to change rather quickly as a result. It isn;t a question of how humans will be affected by it. It's a question of how every animal on Earth will be effected by certain species that those animals depend on becomign extinct as a result of coral bleaching, the more acidic ocean water as a result of an uptake in CO2, etc... Good - survival of the fittest. If Willy isn't fit enough, sucks for him. Should have worked out more and got rid of some of that blubber
[QUOTE="Nerkcon"]1. No one believes in Global Warming anymore, it's called Climate Change and it is a very real threat. 2. Climate Change is still caused by man so we still need to make many sacrifices. 3. If we don't we're going have an ice age because big dumb rednecks did not want to give up their trucks. Get with the times. :lol: @ #3 A dog has a bigger carbon footprint than a car - isn't it time to move past the whole - YOU AND YOUR CAR ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD
These people don't believe in science, only Glen Beck.wstfld
That's why I'm arguing for this. I'm not an all out green crusader. I eat meat. actually I eat a lot of it. I don't pollute as much as the avergae human but I'm sure I pollute somewhat more than I should. I'm just trying to make people aware of the evidence behind it. Most seem comletely close minded to the evidence. Not because of the counter evidence. Because of their political affiliation and their thought processes working in a strawman arguing way. "It's been warmer/more condensed in the past" or "Natural emission of CO2 are much higher than man-made emission therefor man-made emission are bogus" They are following their arguments laid out by othrs who do not understand. Call me SuperGreenMan. I need to go find a green cape.
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="Nerkcon"]1. No one believes in Global Warming anymore, it's called Climate Change and it is a very real threat. 2. Climate Change is still caused by man so we still need to make many sacrifices. 3. If we don't we're going have an ice age because big dumb rednecks did not want to give up their trucks. Get with the times. :lol: @ #3 A dog has a bigger carbon footprint than a car - isn't it time to move past the whole - YOU AND YOUR CAR ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD I was joking. Relax dood. :P
I have not heard about any studies on this mini ice age but didn't Al Gore mention in An Incovenient Truth that global warming could cause an ice age in europe due to the cooling of water in the atlantic from Greenland? SaintLeonidas
I don't know I've never watch An Inconvenient Truth.
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]I have not heard about any studies on this mini ice age but didn't Al Gore mention in An Incovenient Truth that global warming could cause an ice age in europe due to the cooling of water in the atlantic from Greenland? BumFluff122
I don't know I've never watch An Inconvenient Truth. Don't worry about it. There was a story of how it could not receive a certain science award because of so many inaccuracies. :P
Good - survival of the fittest. If Willy isn't fit enough, sucks for him. Should have worked out more and got rid of some of that blubber seabiscuit8686
I hope this was a comedy post. Survival of the fittest has more to do with beneficial genetic mutations rather than who can beat who up or who can eat more.
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"] Good - survival of the fittest. If Willy isn't fit enough, sucks for him. Should have worked out more and got rid of some of that blubber BumFluff122
I hope this was a comedy post. Survival of the fittest has more to do with beneficial genetic mutations rather than who can beat who up or who can eat more. I take it you aren't older than what....16?
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"] Good - survival of the fittest. If Willy isn't fit enough, sucks for him. Should have worked out more and got rid of some of that blubber seabiscuit8686
I hope this was a comedy post. Survival of the fittest has more to do with beneficial genetic mutations rather than who can beat who up or who can eat more. I take it you aren't older than what....16? Yeah, keeping everyone alive hasn't really helped the average intellect of the average person, none the less the physical conditions.
I'll believe global warming is man made when Al Gore believes it's natural.
There isn't really any proof that humans cause it, it is most likely natural.
Jfisch93
The greenhouse effect is natural. If the rising concentration of greenhouse gasses in the air, as a result of man's actions, it isn't natural. Man emits greenhouse gasses into the air such as CO2, water vapour, and more as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. The concentration of those greenhouse gasses has been rising rather quickly since this began, specifically CO2. The rising of those greenhosue gasses due to man's action causes natural sources of greenhouse gasses to increase. That is the most simple way I can put it. How can you say it is natural giving that man's actions, which are not natural, releases more of these greenhouse gases into the air and increases the greenhouse effect as a resault?
[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"] Good - survival of the fittest. If Willy isn't fit enough, sucks for him. Should have worked out more and got rid of some of that blubber seabiscuit8686
I hope this was a comedy post. Survival of the fittest has more to do with beneficial genetic mutations rather than who can beat who up or who can eat more. I take it you aren't older than what....16?I'm probably quite a lot older than you.
It's not global warming, it's climate change. The only places that are getting warmer are the poles. Everywhere else is experiencing more drastic fluctuations in temperature. This is fact. Indisputable, objective, fact.
The only debate is whether or not it's man made, and how fast it's happening.
But anyone who says that climate change is a myth created by rich people is an idiot: rich people want climate change to not be real. The rich, politicians and bureaucrats all have their hand in the oil industry somehow. And the oil industry wants climate change to be false, so they can keep selling more oil.
I'll believe global warming is man made when Al Gore believes it's natural.
There isn't really any proof that humans cause it, it is most likely natural.
BumFluff122
The greenhouse effect is natural. If the rising concentration of greenhouse gasses in the air, as a result of man's actions, it isn't natural. Man emits greenhouse gasses into the air such as CO2, water vapour, and more as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. The concentration of those greenhouse gasses has been rising rather quickly since this began, specifically CO2. The rising of those greenhosue gasses due to man's action causes natural sources of greenhouse gasses to increase. That is the most simple way I can put it. How can you say it is natural giving that man's actions, which are not natural, releases more of these greenhouse gases into the air and increases the greenhouse effect as a resault? Then explain other periods of time where the Earth's temperature rose and decreased?
Then explain other periods of time where the Earth's temperature rose and decreased?
Jfisch93
There are more aspects of climate change than just greenhouse gas increase. One of the aspects, which is thought to bring ice ages, is the axial tilt of the Earth. Another is the varying distance from the Sun. Another is the energy recieved from the Sun. Another is the El Nino and La Nina cycles. Another is the air pressure over oceans. Another is the abundance of pollution in the atmosphere which acts as sort of a blockade against the radiation from the Sun. Another is merely the blockade of the Suez Canal. There are many more. However, the science behind CO2s action in global warming isn't question except by those that choose not to believe it even after being shown. Or those that believe all these tests that positively show the reactive nature of CO2 in the atmosphere is just blind luck.
[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]I have not heard about any studies on this mini ice age but didn't Al Gore mention in An Incovenient Truth that global warming could cause an ice age in europe due to the cooling of water in the atlantic from Greenland? BumFluff122
I don't know I've never watch An Inconvenient Truth. Really? I'm surprised :P but he mentioned how if Greenland was to melt to a certain extent than the cooler and fresh water would have some effect on the transfer of warmer/salt waters in the Atlantic that supply warm air to Europe and it could shut down this supply and it could result in a mini ice age. I'm not too sure of the specifics.How true is it? I do not know, never actually looked up the science or proof behind it but I know there is at least something out thereto do with a mini ice age and climate change that actually supports it rather than denies it which is what the original poster on that comment was trying to claim.
Really? I'm surprised :P but he mentioned how if Greenland was to melt to a certain extent than the cooler and fresh water would have some effect on the transfer of warmer/salt waters in the Atlantic that supply warm air to Europe and it could shut down this supply and it could result in a mini ice age. I'm not too sure of the specifics.How true is it? I do not know, never actually looked up the science or proof behind it but I know there is at least something out thereto do with a mini ice age and climate change that actually supports it rather than denies it which is what the original poster on that comment was trying to claim.
SaintLeonidas
If I did watch an inconvenient truth I'd probably view it in much the same light as skeptics do because it is done by a person with an agenda. Or so others say. I have never really looked into Al Gore at all. Perhaps he is talkign about the blockade of the Suez Canal which is thought to have ushered in several ice ages in the northern hemisphere?
Really? I'm surprised :P but he mentioned how if Greenland was to melt to a certain extent than the cooler and fresh water would have some effect on the transfer of warmer/salt waters in the Atlantic that supply warm air to Europe and it could shut down this supply and it could result in a mini ice age. I'm not too sure of the specifics.How true is it? I do not know, never actually looked up the science or proof behind it but I know there is at least something out thereto do with a mini ice age and climate change that actually supports it rather than denies it which is what the original poster on that comment was trying to claim.
If I did watch an inconvenient truth I'd probably view it in much the same light as skeptics do because it is done by a person with an agenda. Or so others say. I have never really looked into Al Gore at all. Perhaps he is talkign about the blockade of the Suez Canal which is thought to have ushered in several ice ages in the northern hemisphere? It was more about the currents and how because of the lower salinity and cooler temperature of melt water from Greenland, it could halt the currents and resultant winds that keep Europe warm and cause drastic cooling and a possible mini ice age.
Log in to comment