EPTPoll: Global Warming: Primarily Caused by Humans?
(Vote): Yes. CO2.
(Vote): No. Caused by Earth's natural cycles
[H] About Global Warming.... - Page 3
| Blogs > SweeTLemonS[TPR] |
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Poll: Global Warming: Primarily Caused by Humans? (Vote): Yes. CO2. (Vote): No. Caused by Earth's natural cycles | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Rather than asking: "I wanna be in favor of man-made global warming theory, teach me what I need to know to support it", you SHOULD be saying, "I wanna know more about climate change so I can decide what to think about it on my own. Share information please". The second way of thinking will lead you to a more educated/empowered life. Here is some info: In general humans do not have as big an impact on the planet as we tend to think. ![[image loading]](http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif) "Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not." --http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Other sources if you wanted to do some reading. For some reason I don't understand people get all religious about global warming and don't even like to read things that might shake their "faith" but I will list them anyway. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Dont-believe-it.html ^^ Seriously read this one. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ And I really like this one, but you have to ignore the first 2 minutes. It is designed to be the "emotional catch" that keeps TV viewers watching. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870 What I would like to see is a real debate over the role economics/politics have played in the debate over global warming. For example, nobody is surprised to find out that studies that were sponsored by drug companies tend to usually make the drug out to be better than it really is. However, we somehow expect climate scientists to be immune to the $$$ effect even though we accept that medical scientists are not. The fact is that billions of dollars go into climate research that would not have if there was not a perception that global warming is a crisis and is man-made. How smart is it to put yourself out of a job by saying, "meh, as far as we can tell we can't do anything about it"? Money ALWAYS is a factor. Remember that golden rule. Scientists and even doctors are not exempt from that. If you watch that video I linked, you will see first hand scientists talking about the enormous pressure they were under to "find" things in favor of man-made warming. If you want to make money as a scientist, you face some huge incentives. That, I think, should at least be a part of any discussion about global warming..just like who sponsored a drug study should always be known and taken into account when doctors are deciding what to prescribe. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 08 2009 08:48 SagaZ wrote: The movie "an uncovenient truth" is exactly what you're looking for. It's very well explained and even funny at some parts. /facepalm http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3719791&page=1 | ||
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
| ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
Instead of choosing your side or "faith", leave it open until scientists come up with better explanations. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On October 09 2009 23:20 Foucault wrote: Yeah, I don't get why people get all religious about the climate debate lol Instead of choosing your side or "faith", leave it open until scientists come up with better explanations. How do you know when they have 'come up with better explanations?' | ||
|
Ro[]t
Sweden147 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
Secondly, I voted "no" because I believe the CO2-dominated theories to be wrong. But that does not mean we are not responsible for climate change. We might be or we might not be. I believe that there are other factors involved in climate change (many natural, some human-influenced) that we do not understand. It should be stated (for the first time in this thread), that microbial lifeforms actually have a substantially greater influence on the earth's climate than we do. It's commonly believed that microbial lifeforms are what turned this planet from a barren rock into what it is today -- that is to say that life itself creates more opportunity for life and that microbial lifeforms have played the essential role in all of this. FFS, even your bodies are teeming with microbial life and recent research into how that life interacts wioth your body, in particular the digestive system, has led to many breakthroughs in modern medicine. We do not know what our impact has been on these microbial lifeforms. We do not know what our water pollution has done to them. We do not know what our agriculture with all our fertilizers and pesticides has done to them. We do not know what our industrial waste has done to them. We simply are not in a position to say those things, and more likely than not these factors have had more direct environmental impact than anything else we have done. About money: most of the environmental research today comes out of the pockets of environmentalist groups (which have now become a huge industry in their own right, particularly with the Hollywood crowd jumping on the bandwagon) and government agencies, which each have their own objectives and motivations. (The first and foremost perogative of every government agency is receiving more funding, so most of them take a "pro-environment" stance so that they can justify their research.) Private industry funds very little of the research. This is one of the ironies of so-called "environmentalists" (activists, not scientists) claiming that any "anti-global warming" research is a product of the oil companies. Truth be told, I doubt the oil companies really care either way, because they know that even if the oil market in the U.S. declines, the rising oil markets in the developing world will more than make up for it. And no good alternative fuel is visible on the horizon. They still have decades. With the way things are looking right now, by the time an alternative fuel is truly ready -- that is, by the time an alternative fuel has been properly tested, rubber stamped, and suficient ifrastructure has been set-up -- we will probably be at a point where whatever oil out there that's left is difficult to extract anyway. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
That last paragraph he wrote should answer your questions Micronesia. | ||
| ||
