Software

General discussion

Locked

What About Global Warming?

By FluxIt ·
I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

What do you think about the article?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

YEP and also here I always get a laugh

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to And, before that, the Ozo ...

One of the Upper Market Suburbs in the area that I grew up in is situated on the site of an old tannery.

I'll give you one guess what the soil is contaminated with on these $300.000.00 allotments.

When this Building project originally started they wouldn't believe the warnings now 20 years latter half of the houses built there have been demolished and the soil removed. The site is still so contaminated that the area is fenced off and never to be used for anything.

When I went to Charters Towers I got a real shock at the local Hospital that had a massive sign on the wall telling the Medical Staff how to recognise & treat Cyanide Poising. After all the tailings from the Gold Mines where Cyanide Separation was used where not at all dangerous and the masses of the stuff left lying around where nothing would grow 100 years after it was dumped there was no reason to be at all concerned.

Col

Collapse -

Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

by sn53 In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

I am always confused by the almost eager willingness to talk about both pollution management and global warming theory as if they are the same thing. Is this part of the same religion?

Collapse -

sn53: It's the same propensity to disavow responsibility ...

by deepsand In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

for the consequences of one's actions that has manifested itself in all of the examples cited by Col and myself, and which is now displayed by those who out of hand dismiss global warming and/or mankind's role in such.

Collapse -

sn53: "I am always confused"

by Absolutely In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

"I am always confused by the almost eager willingness to talk about both pollution management and global warming theory as if they are the same thing."

Someone had expressed doubt that global warming, caused by humans, is possible. The mentions of other forms of pollution were offered as examples of proof that human effects on the environment have occurred already, to help convince you that yet one more may be occurring.

Collapse -

Don't be confused, they are related

by Oz_Media In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

While some like to separate the issues, one is a reason for the other.

The only reason people agrue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control. This works for both our cars and ground level emissions, smog etc. and also our emissions of the same gases that increase the natural effects of global warming.

Show me how our pollution control is NOT aligned with emissions control/global warming awareness, I'll show you very easily that they are related.

While there is contest relative to the amount that our emissions incrase global warming, there is NO contest that our lack of emissions control is killing us as we live and breath on Earth.

If we reduce and pay close attention to our KNOWN harmful emissions, it will also decrease the number of contaminants sent into our ozone, not all gases reach high enough altitude to break down and become harmless. Read up on carboxyhemoglobin, I know someone who died from it already, right in his own home. Polution control will, in turn, result in environmental support/control.

Collapse -

Why oh why oh why?

by sn53 In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

oz wrote, "The only reason people argue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control."

Maybe in your small world. I argue against the idea of human-caused global warming for a variety of reasons. In the last one hundred years the temperature has risen about one degree. Most of that warming was in the period prior to the the 1970s. Mars is warming. Other planets are warming. The whole point of global warming "countermeasures" is to increase the size, scope, and reach of governments. Instead of looking to solutions that grant greater freedoms and liberties for the people they only seek to regulate, control, and to tax.

Waste management, despite the claims to the contrary here, is not argued against. The richest nations are also the cleanest nations.

Collapse -

Note which side is now arguing based on assumption of the others' motives.

by Absolutely In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

OzMedia: "The only reason people agrue (sic) AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded (sic) for proper emissions control."

Is it really about the science, or will you employ any type of argument, allegory or fallacy necessary, in order to convince voters to be afraid of global warming?

Collapse -

Why, oh why, oh why, sn53, are you contradicting yourself?

by deepsand In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

On the one hand, you rely on supposed correlations which may or may not be relevant, while on the other decrying the decidedly relevant correlations set forth by your opponents.

You can't have it both ways.

The problem is that you do not understand the scientific issues involved, and therefore seize blindly on those "facts" which seem to serve your desired conclusion, without even knowing which facts are relevant and which are not.

Collapse -

Well, Absolutely, given that motives can and do lead to bias, ...

by deepsand In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.

Collapse -

deep, a tool for the enviro-fascists

by sn53 In reply to YEP and also here I alway ...

deep wrote, "sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary"

How can you get it so wrong with such regularity? I said that I do not need to understand any more of the science than I do. This is not about science. It is about naked aggression and political control. Consider this clarification if my statements were not clear to you in the past.

You cannot be trusted because you are a useful idiot for the enviro-fascists.

Related Discussions

Related Forums