The Great Global Warming Swindle

[ad_hominem]

The basic point is that global climate change is a BAD THING, no matter how you slice and dice it we need to do something to stop it and if cutting down on pollution has any remote possibility of doing that (along with the enormous benefit of making the air NOT TOXIC TO BREATHE) then it needs, not should, but NEEDS to be done. Whether or not we are the cause is irrelevant to both whether or not it should be stopped and whether or not we should cut down on pollution and CO2 emissions.

End of story.

I'm afraid that's not the end of the story. You seem to think that we can stop global climate change, but we can't. Not even if we switched off every single power station, ditched all our cars and stopped using electricity, it would still happen. The most we can do its hope to delay it slightly. I think the real goal, and something we have to strive for, is coping with climate change instead of trying to swim against the tide.

We might not be able to stop it happening entirely, but cutting down on pollution now could mean that when the effects start becoming widespread, we might have lessened the resulting damage to something we can cope with.

[marks]

Ummmm ... sorry to burst your bubble guys, but according to NASA's published figures, the only place where they've recorded an average temperature increase in the last 50 years has been near urban areas, at night, where the measuring stations are susceptible to the skyline effect (concrete absorbs heat from sunlight during the day, takes a long time to cool off during the night, leading to increased night-time temperatures).

[KILLA-COW]

Ummmm ... sorry to burst your bubble guys, but according to NASA's published figures, the only place where they've recorded an average temperature increase in the last 50 years has been near urban areas, at night, where the measuring stations are susceptible to the skyline effect (concrete absorbs heat from sunlight during the day, takes a long time to cool off during the night, leading to increased night-time temperatures).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... ctica.html

That isn't a very urban area?!

[ad_hominem]

Ummmm ... sorry to burst your bubble guys, but according to NASA's published figures, the only place where they've recorded an average temperature increase in the last 50 years has been near urban areas, at night, where the measuring stations are susceptible to the skyline effect (concrete absorbs heat from sunlight during the day, takes a long time to cool off during the night, leading to increased night-time temperatures).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... ctica.html

That isn't a very urban area?!

ZING!

[marks]

Just because the temperature is dropping at the poles doesn't mean it's dropping everywhere else aswell (hint: it isn't). Gogo conflicting sources though

[ghost12332]

The temperature is rising at the poles. Thats why they're melting

[KILLA-COW]

Just because the temperature is dropping at the poles doesn't mean it's dropping everywhere else aswell (hint: it isn't). Gogo conflicting sources though

Gogo conflicting posts.

dropping at the poles

Again; http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... ctica.html

The temperature (according to this - an article on the nasa website) is RISING at the poles. Not dropping.

Your whole point was something about the only temperate rises being in urban areas at night because concrete holds heat. I don't think anyone can deny that average temperatures have risen across the globe in areas that AREN'T urban areas at night. You know like http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... ctica.html.

[Sathor]

To deny global warming is kinda dumb. To make the humans responsible for it, is dumb too. We are merely a catalysator, not the reason. A few thousand years ago, there were not white bears at the poles. In fact, a really many thousand years ago, we had no ice poles at all. So whats the matter? Nature will evolve with new forms of life. Long after we are extinct, other stuff will live here. So what? I agree we should turn down polution and stuff, but for our healths sake, not global warming ...

[marks]

moronic shit

Yeah, way to jump on the OMG IM RIGHT bandwagon over what was clearly a mistake in my post. Fucking child.

[marks]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kary ... ts_do.html

Start watching at about 20 or 21 minutes. The guy is a renowned biochemist, talking at an international conference. You want to take notice. Also, you need to learn that there are 2 sides to every story, instead of being a self-righteous douche.

The irony is that one of the quoted papers which denounce global warming .... was published by NASA.

I'm not saying that the climate isn't changing, I'm saying that global warming is bogus and it has been proven by established laboratories aswell as NASA. I apologise if my previous posts weren't clear on that.

[Sathor]

I agree with you about the two sides stuff, but I don't trust the NASA for an apple pie. Their money comes from the US government, which isn't too keen (under Bush, hasn't, in fact), about stopping the stuff that might influence climate in a bad way. Every study of every lab or whatever is financed by somebody or something and thus not completely trustworthy. There are different studies from other as respactable institutions claiming the different.
I still think we should try to save energy. I am not a big "we gotta save teh planet because climate change" dude myself, but I think it is reasonable to bring pollution down to a minimum. It cannot be that good for you if you walk around in the City of London - I went there last summer - and you got black stuff in your nose after a day. Not to talk about big Chinese cities now.

Still, as I said, I try to see both sides - a burning forest does more "damage" to the climate (can the nature damage itself? - I don't think so).

Besides, the earth climate has always changed. It will always change. Dinosaurs wouldn't have lived with our climate ...
We might talk about a global warmth SHIFTING, would that make more sense?

[Mr-Jigsaw]

(can the nature damage itself? - I don't think so).

Yes, it can. Nature is the conglomeration and relationships between all organic and non-organic processes on Earth(technically humanity included, but I won't argue that). A predator can whittle down its prey population to near extinction, then run out of food itself, then begin dying out themselves, and the prey then takes a long time to repopulate, if they still are able. Either that, or the top tier predator begins to prey upon new sources of food, and now the food web is all out of whack. I think that constitutes damage.

Oh, and volcanoes. They are natural and they damage the environment.

Their money comes from the US government, which isn't too keen (under Bush, hasn't, in fact)

He was president, not supreme chancellor of the universe and eternity, there was hegemony.

We might talk about a global warmth SHIFTING, would that make more sense?

Global climate cycles, perhaps?

[Jangalomph]

Don't you guy's think the reason the poles are melting is because we are coming out of the ice age.. and that's the ice left out of it. That's my theory.

[marks]

It remains to be seen how much of that is down to a global climate cycle, and how much of it is down to pollution. Which is the point we're discussing?

[abathor]

Don't you guy's think the reason the poles are melting is because we are coming out of the ice age.. and that's the ice left out of it. That's my theory.

See my earlier post. If only more people realised this. But people seem to want to ignore this simple fact. People don't realise we are in an ice age but we are, still, and as we come out of it, the planet is heating up. The problem is people hate change, even if that change is natural, and expected. People don't like it when their accepted view of things is shaken up.