is it foolish to not accept global warming as fact?

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

There really isn't any way to prove that the Earth is warming only because of humans though. And if one believes in evolution, warming is an entirely natural effect since humans survive by depleting/modifying the environments around them.

If humans weren't present on planet Earth, there would still come a day when Earth could no longer be sustained.

Blueresident87

I agree with what you're saying, but mankind's effect on the planet is part of that natural cycle. To think there is some way for humans to exist in any fashion even close to how we do now and for us to be completetly non-harmful to the environment is silly. It's one or the other; either humans go or they'll continue to be harmful. That's about as much of a fact as anything else spouted around in this thread.

Damage control is possible, but not an end-all answer.

We all know climate change is occurring. What solutions have been proposed so far?

The earth is warming.  But it's not caused by humans, and it's a not dangerous.  In fact, it could be helpful, but we are at the brink of another ice age, so we should be preparing for extreme cooling within the next 1000 years.

If we take steps as a world to fix global warming, I'd be okay with spending money to do something about it.

But I don't think the US should economically disadvantage itself when other large countries won't do the same. -cough- China -cough-

The earth is warming.  But it's not caused by humans, and it's a not dangerous.  GOGOGOGURT

I'd love to know what scientific source gave you those conclusions.

If we take steps as a world to fix global warming, I'd be okay with spending money to do something about it.

But I don't think the US should economically disadvantage itself when other large countries won't do the same. -cough- China -cough-

airshocker

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/eye-stinging-beijing-air-risks-lifelong-harm-to-babies.html

i think it's slowly sinking in...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/eye-stinging-beijing-air-risks-lifelong-harm-to-babies.html

comp_atkins

I honestly don't think the Chinese give a fvck. The populace probably does, but the government? Yeah, okay.

We all know climate change is occurring. What solutions have been proposed so far?

jun_aka_pekto

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

i think it's slowly sinking in...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/eye-stinging-beijing-air-risks-lifelong-harm-to-babies.html

airshocker

I honestly don't think the Chinese give a fvck. The populace probably does, but the government? Yeah, okay.

I agree with you. Curbing their coal burning would slow their economy and prevent them from overtaking us in the short term.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

The earth is warming.  But it's not caused by humans, and it's a not dangerous.  jimkabrhel

I'd love to know what scientific source gave you those conclusions.

Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.

Most loudmouth enviromentalists are hacks who alarm people, becasue it makes them MONEY.  Al gore is a good example.  People like you eat it up.  Pathetic really.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]

i think it's slowly sinking in...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/eye-stinging-beijing-air-risks-lifelong-harm-to-babies.html

jimkabrhel

I honestly don't think the Chinese give a fvck. The populace probably does, but the government? Yeah, okay.

I agree with you. Curbing their coal burning would slow their economy and prevent them from overtaking us in the short term.

Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.GOGOGOGURT

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

We all know climate change is occurring. What solutions have been proposed so far?

Nibroc420

THANK YOU!  Someone who's not brainwashed. 

We flatter ourselves with how much we change the climate.  Earth is a friggin massive ball of rock.  We would have to try REALLY hard to damage it's cycle.  We give ourselves too much credit.

Oh my god are you trolling?  It's too good to be true.

Global warming is a made up fairy tale perpetuated by the Librul boogeyman to scare hard-working, environment killing, American companies and to deter them from said environment killing. It's a conspiracy where 95% of the scientific community is apart of, even if they have no direct benefit from it.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.Ace6301

Global warming is a made up fairy tale perpetuated by the Librul boogeyman to scare hard-working, environment killing, American companies and to deter them from said environment killing. It's a conspiracy where 95% of the scientific community is apart of, even if they have no direct benefit from it.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

There really isn't any way to prove that the Earth is warming only because of humans though. And if one believes in evolution, warming is an entirely natural effect since humans survive by depleting/modifying the environments around them.

If humans weren't present on planet Earth, there would still come a day when Earth could no longer be sustained.

Blueresident87

I agree that humans are the primary reason, but you would have to completely change the entire course of human existence to have even the smallest impact on the planet warming. Humans are doing what they do and what they've done for centuries, even people who claim to be 'so green' and care so much about the environment do things every single day that are harmful to it. It's human nature, that's it. Indifference and complacency, human nature. You wouldn't expect a tiger to stop eating meat because it is harmful to a specific species' population since that's entirely out of character for a tiger. Humans will continue to burn through fossil fuels and will continue to be harmful(at least more so than other species) towards the environment because it's what we do and it's how we've structured our lives. Being aware of warming and taking steps to slow it down are great, but it's damage control. There is no answer that will cause the warming effect to reverse or anything even close.

If you are speaking of the sun as an energy source, that doesn't make sense because it won't be operational indefinitely as it's widely believed that the sun will run out of energy one day. I see no reason to expedite this process, even if we had the means. And the avenues for renewable energy are not as abundant as you seem to think.

Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.

GOGOGOGURT

Having read a fair amount of the primary literature, I know that you are quite right that the CO2 levels have been higher in the history of the Earth, but in no case was it a "paradise" at least not for humanity, who has never experienced that level of CO2 or the temperatures that came with it.

So I'll resort to a tried and true forum tactic:

[citation needed]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Global warming is a made up fairy tale perpetuated by the Librul boogeyman to scare hard-working, environment killing, American companies and to deter them from said environment killing. It's a conspiracy where 95% of the scientific community is apart of, even if they have no direct benefit from it.

comp_atkins

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.Ace6301

The only negative would be rising sea levels, yes.  It doesn't happen all at once, you nitwit.  The sea has been rising about 1/3rd of an inch each year.  That's very slow, and we would have plenty of time to adjust.  Also, sea level is 400 ft higher than it was 15,000 years ago, without any catastrophe.

And most imprortantly, we would GAIN more land than would be claimed by the sea.  The retreating of ice sheets and temprate weather in siberia, and the fauna growth in the sahara would make more places liveable, so it would be over-compensated.

HAAHAHHAHAKHSHJD frickin hilarious.

<

The only negative would be rising sea levels, yes.  It doesn't happen all at once, you nitwit.  The sea has been rising about 1/3rd of an inch each year.  That's very slow, and we would have plenty of time to adjust.  Also, sea level is 400 ft higher than it was 15,000 years ago, without any catastrophe.

 

And most imprortantly, we would GAIN more land than would be claimed by the sea.  The retreating of ice sheets and temprate weather in siberia, and the fauna growth in the sahara would make more places liveable, so it would be over-compensated.

 

HAAHAHHAHAKHSHJD frickin hilarious.

GOGOGOGURT

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.GOGOGOGURT

The only negative would be rising sea levels, yes.  It doesn't happen all at once, you nitwit.  The sea has been rising about 1/3rd of an inch each year.  That's very slow, and we would have plenty of time to adjust.  Also, sea level is 400 ft higher than it was 15,000 years ago, without any catastrophe.

And most imprortantly, we would GAIN more land than would be claimed by the sea.  The retreating of ice sheets and temprate weather in siberia, and the fauna growth in the sahara would make more places liveable, so it would be over-compensated.

HAAHAHHAHAKHSHJD frickin hilarious.

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.

jimkabrhel

Having read a fair amount of the primary literature, I know that you are quite right that the CO2 levels have been higher in the history of the Earth, but in no case was it a "paradise" at least not for humanity, who has never experienced that level of CO2 or the temperatures that came with it.

So I'll resort to a tried and true forum tactic:

[citation needed]

If mammals could survive, we could.  And not just CO2 was up, oxygen was up too, the air was denser and easier to breathe.  Plants photosynthisyzing like crazy, since there was no shortage of CO2, and it created a balance of oxygen.  It was a vibrant ecosystem, and compared to today, ours is very dull.

Thank you for the intelligent response.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

Any climateoligist worth his weight will know that there where periods where the CO2 content was at about 3000ppm ( today it is 400ppm) and it was a paradise on earth.  If you believe in evolution, it was where all the essential changes happened to mammals.

GOGOGOGURT

Having read a fair amount of the primary literature, I know that you are quite right that the CO2 levels have been higher in the history of the Earth, but in no case was it a "paradise" at least not for humanity, who has never experienced that level of CO2 or the temperatures that came with it.

So I'll resort to a tried and true forum tactic:

[citation needed]

Mammals who evolved under those conditions, not human who have evolved under very different conditions.

Did you take elementary biology?

If mammals could survive, we could.  And not just CO2 was up, oxygen was up too, the air was denser and easier to breathe.  Plants photosynthisyzing like crazy, since there was no shortage of CO2, and it created a balance of oxygen.  It was a vibrant ecosystem, and compared to today, ours is very dull.

Thank you for the intelligent response.

It's foolish to deny that the climate around the world hasn't changed and isn't currently changing and it's also foolish to believe that humans haven't had a negative environmental impact that has caused it.

It's also foolish to think we can just ramp up those tax dollars and reverse the effects. 

The only way to really "undo" humanity's effects is kill off the human race and let the Earth reclaim what we've taken. Thinking that by simply taxing corporations for polluting and dumping that money into cleaning up our mess is going to solve anything is about the same as not believe in climate change at all. It's never an easy answer despite what people want to believe.

Depsite what people believe the western nations have been doing a much better job of environmental regulation. It's not our nations we need to worry about anymore. Cleaner energy, cars, food, and all of that just leads to a higher standard of living which the west is constantly pushing towards. However everything we do is kind of undone every week when China builds another coal burning powerplant. 

You know, I would probably survive cutting my right thumb off, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Hahahahahahahaha. Hey guys we should flood the earth because the most essential changes happened in the ocean. Guys let's destroy our entire economy because it will be "paradise on earth". This is too f*cking funny.-Sun_Tzu-

The only negative would be rising sea levels, yes.  It doesn't happen all at once, you nitwit.  The sea has been rising about 1/3rd of an inch each year.  That's very slow, and we would have plenty of time to adjust.  Also, sea level is 400 ft higher than it was 15,000 years ago, without any catastrophe.

And most imprortantly, we would GAIN more land than would be claimed by the sea.  The retreating of ice sheets and temprate weather in siberia, and the fauna growth in the sahara would make more places liveable, so it would be over-compensated.

HAAHAHHAHAKHSHJD frickin hilarious.

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

Yes since Al Gore would be sad. 

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Having read a fair amount of the primary literature, I know that you are quite right that the CO2 levels have been higher in the history of the Earth, but in no case was it a "paradise" at least not for humanity, who has never experienced that level of CO2 or the temperatures that came with it.

So I'll resort to a tried and true forum tactic:

[citation needed]

jimkabrhel

Mammals who evolved under those conditions, not human who have evolved under very different conditions.

Did you take elementary biology?

If mammals could survive, we could.  And not just CO2 was up, oxygen was up too, the air was denser and easier to breathe.  Plants photosynthisyzing like crazy, since there was no shortage of CO2, and it created a balance of oxygen.  It was a vibrant ecosystem, and compared to today, ours is very dull.

Thank you for the intelligent response.

Yes.  Have you?  Because it has nothing to do with it.  This is way past elementary biology.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

The only negative would be rising sea levels, yes.  It doesn't happen all at once, you nitwit.  The sea has been rising about 1/3rd of an inch each year.  That's very slow, and we would have plenty of time to adjust.  Also, sea level is 400 ft higher than it was 15,000 years ago, without any catastrophe.

 

And most imprortantly, we would GAIN more land than would be claimed by the sea.  The retreating of ice sheets and temprate weather in siberia, and the fauna growth in the sahara would make more places liveable, so it would be over-compensated.

 

HAAHAHHAHAKHSHJD frickin hilarious.

GOGOGOGURT

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

You know, I would probably survive cutting my right thumb off, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

-Sun_Tzu-

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

 

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

GOGOGOGURT

The oceans acidifying is already occuring, some areas worse than others. There won't be a Noah kind of flood, but the water risign isn't good for anyone. It isn't just a few alarmist people who believe this; it's thousands of scientist who study the different aspects of the climate.

Where is anyone saying we are going to be entering an ice age?

<

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

 

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

 

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

GOGOGOGURT

You know, I would probably survive cutting my right thumb off, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

coolbeans90

Hey man, millions of years ago mammals didn't have thumbs and it was a paradise on earth!

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

-Sun_Tzu-

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You know, I would probably survive cutting my right thumb off, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Slow_Show

Hey man, millions of years ago mammals didn't have thumbs and it was a paradise on earth!

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

 

The only negative would be rising sea levels, yes.  It doesn't happen all at once, you nitwit.  The sea has been rising about 1/3rd of an inch each year.  That's very slow, and we would have plenty of time to adjust.  Also, sea level is 400 ft higher than it was 15,000 years ago, without any catastrophe.

 

And most imprortantly, we would GAIN more land than would be claimed by the sea.  The retreating of ice sheets and temprate weather in siberia, and the fauna growth in the sahara would make more places liveable, so it would be over-compensated.

 

HAAHAHHAHAKHSHJD frickin hilarious.

GOGOGOGURT

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Yeah, it's all gonna be rainbows and sunshine 

 

rastotm

Most species that exist today coped with it just fine, and even thrived when it was more extreme than it will ever get again.

I can't believe you believe that.  There will be no mass extintions, or mass flooding (at once, at least) or mass droughts, and the ocean will not acidify.  These are fabrications by a few alarmist enviromentalists.  And anyone who is an enviromentalist is going to find the facts they want, and the truth they want.

But I wouldn't worry even If you ARE right, as we are about to enter another ice age.

some thing like less then 3% think its fake.

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I didn't mean that the Earth is warming only because of humans, just that we are the primary reason behind global warming today. And for the vast majority of human history we've survived just fine without pumping vast amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere. Moreover, no species survives by rendering the environment around them uninhabitable. Even today we don't have to be as reliant on fossil fuels as we currently are. Indeed, we can't be as reliant on fossil fuels as we currently are because they aren't a renewable energy source. We have access to a massive nuclear power plant located at the center of our solar system that will - for all intents and purposes - be operational indefinitely that we haven't even begun to effectively utilize for our electrical needs. And that's just one avenue for renewable energy. We've been very lazy about putting together a long term sustainable energy plan - not just for the US but for the planet as a whole, and I see no reason why that laziness is justified. People like to complain about how the technology isn't there yet as if that's a reason to be complacent with the way things are. Just think about the amount of progress that was made in physics around the time of WWII with the Manhattan project. What's stopping us from having a Manhattan project for renewable energy besides mere complacency and indifference? -Sun_Tzu-

I agree that humans are the primary reason, but you would have to completely change the entire course of human existence to have even the smallest impact on the planet warming. Humans are doing what they do and what they've done for centuries, even people who claim to be 'so green' and care so much about the environment do things every single day that are harmful to it. It's human nature, that's it. Indifference and complacency, human nature. You wouldn't expect a tiger to stop eating meat because it is harmful to a specific species' population since that's entirely out of character for a tiger. Humans will continue to burn through fossil fuels and will continue to be harmful(at least more so than other species) towards the environment because it's what we do and it's how we've structured our lives. Being aware of warming and taking steps to slow it down are great, but it's damage control. There is no answer that will cause the warming effect to reverse or anything even close.

If you are speaking of the sun as an energy source, that doesn't make sense because it won't be operational indefinitely as it's widely believed that the sun will run out of energy one day. I see no reason to expedite this process, even if we had the means. And the avenues for renewable energy are not as abundant as you seem to think.

No, just soaking up the energy from the sun's rays does nothing to the speed of aging of the sun, but solar energy isn't reliable enough and certainly not on a scale that will make any amount of difference in a truly industrialized country. There are just too many people reliable on constant energy for any number of menial and meaningful tasks.

By the way, I initially thought you meant travelling to the sun and trying to somehow transfer its raw energy back to earth...thought you were just being ridiculous, ha