|
Post by Captain SpExtacular on Apr 23, 2008 23:55:44 GMT -5
What you said kind of proved my point though. Anything before the 19th century (1800s = 19th century for some reason) can't be accounted for and can't be compared to any other time period where similar circumstances might have taken place. I mean there is no doubt that producing goods and resources has its side effects, but whether or not it's causing the worlds temperature to rise still needs further proof in order to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Apr 24, 2008 6:42:46 GMT -5
I do not believe I ever sided with you.
... Popular data suggests that throughout the ages since the commonly accepted timeline of 60000 years ago, the carbon and temperature levels have remained more or less around the same. Right until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Why 60000 years onwards? This is because this is the universally accepted dateline in which archaeologists believe that the first human existed.
If I find it, I'd post it here - since it was published by a popular scientific magazine/journal.
The reason I point this out is because it was from the Industrial Revolution onwards that mankind on a worldwide and far larger scale had demanded for more luxuries and convenience goods. My logic is simple - mass numbers of heat-generating activities, evry single activity known to and performed by man has produced heat. Whats more, carbon dioxide is still increasing and even though there's progress in reforestation, there's still a lot of agriculture going on today. The mass harvest and felling down of trees cannot cope with industrial carbon production, and thus carbon dioxide being an insulator traps heat.
The ocean is being heated up, corals are dying here and there because the ocean's temperatures are rising beyond the tolerance level these plants and corals can normally adapt to. The symbiotic relationship between the sea and the plants is being destroyed, and the ocean is becoming a giant heat sink. Haven't you read papers before whose studies have shown that ocean plant life is dying? It is because the ocean serves well as an effective sink and that plants can take in more CO2 which is why temperatures and heat levels have been constant for thousands of years.
You drive a car or you see a person drive a car. The engines and exhaust are freaking hot, imagine that multiplied by million times more when many people, by the millions, are driving at the same time. Isn't that so much heat enough of an evidence?
Where do you think all those heat end up to? They don't just disappear, but they still remain here, and the end result of accumulation heat ultimately resulted in the decades old study of increase of temperature levels.
There are tonnes of research out there about all this, don't even say we still need more research. Most of us are just plain ignorant to even know and read it. That's why most human beings simply ignore the things around us and say things don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Apr 24, 2008 6:54:48 GMT -5
I'd say the ignorant ones are the one who claim things DO exist, and are unwilling to change their mind despite the lack of any hard evidance.
And yes, you're right. Everything does produce heat. That doesn't make the planet hotter though. With that logic, I can sit here and rub my hands togeather real fast til they get real hot and get blamed for Global Warming. Activities that produce heat don't account for world-wide rises in temprature.
As for the Oceans heating up, the whole Ocean isn't heating up. There are some instances where industries near the water do cause the water to get a big hotter, but saying the Ocean is heating up beyond where it can sustain life is a gross over-exaggeration.
And I don't think I should have to say this again, but I will. There isn't alot of Carbon Dioxide because we're cutting down the forests, and the plants "can't keep up." As I stated before, for every tree we cut down, two more get planted. The logging industries don't want to run out of a job any more than you or I. The rate at which trees are cut down is also usually grossly exaggerated, unfortunately, so alot of people are misinformed when it comes to that issue.
I still stand firm in my belief that supposing there is any heating up going on in the planet, that it's natural, and that the fight against Global Warming is just a political ploy to win attention. A ploy that' you've bit into, hook, line, and sinker. =/
|
|
|
Post by Captain SpExtacular on Apr 24, 2008 14:04:39 GMT -5
Global warming consumes so much of our economy now too. If it was proved false all those Green and Eco Friendly companies would go out of business. Not to mention the federal jobs it has created for people to sit around and "discuss" world problems.
Ok Fann
400,000,000,000,000 - 60,000 ------------------------------ 399999999940000
I would say that is plenty of time for allot of stuff to happen before things were recorded, or have been studied.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Apr 24, 2008 21:30:41 GMT -5
The universe is roughly 16 to 20 billion years old, and the Earth itself is about 4.6 billion years old. Your numbers are telling me ... 400 trillion years. Right.
And you are using the 60 000 years I mentioned. The only range of data legible to be compared for global warming is from 60000 years till today because ... pretty much before 60 000 years ago, the Earth was still in a process of creation, so turbulent natural processes are expected to get rid of the dinosaurs that plagued the Earth that time.
And archaeologically, the carbon countings at those times cannot be used to compare as the same level as the recent ones - simply because humans never existed that time.
And as mentioned, throughout 60000 years of human life has seen constant and stable temperatures and carbon levels. Only it was from the Industrial Revolution that this started to rise.
The current concentration of CO2 is the air is 380 ppm, and we are very close to 400 ppm, which is the maximum limit before we enter the levels of toxicity and potential danger.
To Nightmare - true, you can plant trees on soil, but can you plant trees and coral life underwater, which are responsible for the massive uptake of CO2 for the past 60000 years and thus stablizing CO2 and temperature levels on Earth? It's impossible, since we do not have any coral breeding laboratories on soil. And they are dying fast due to rising ocean temperatures caused by the constant emission of heat from human breath, industry chimneys and cars. Especially cars.
|
|
|
Post by Captain SpExtacular on Apr 24, 2008 21:39:20 GMT -5
There is a movie you need to see called The Great Global Warming Swindle.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Apr 24, 2008 21:52:54 GMT -5
I would advise you to have that post with more detail about the movie and not just telling me to see it - because chances are, you're telling a majority of others to watch an unknown movie and in which it could waste their time without forehand knowledge.
But either way, please detail out your synopsis in the next reply. I await.
On a side note, 97 percent of UN scientists approve and acknowledge that global warming and climate change is real and virtually every scientist agree with the peer-review system that evaluates such reports. To say that a majority of mankind is deliberately swindled by the industry and irresponsible governments would mean their lifes and dedication are amount only to nothing
And scientists know very well what they do - lying and fabrication is an absolute act of disgrace we all detest.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Apr 25, 2008 6:13:39 GMT -5
Assuming those numbers are accurate, the UN, like I said before, more than likely feeds us the Global Warming crap because of politics. And if you think that people detesting liars is gonna make them not lie, you're more naive than I thought. XD
And I don't know why you're knocking on cars now, like I said, they don't produce that much of anything. And I've still yet to see any evidence that supports the ocean heating up other.
And also, since when did corals produce the Oxygen we all need so badly? It is and always has been trees, and like I said, trees aren't a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Captain SpExtacular on Apr 25, 2008 20:48:49 GMT -5
I would advise you to have that post with more detail about the movie and not just telling me to see it - because chances are, you're telling a majority of others to watch Personally I thought the title was pretty self explanatory. It's a British documentary that disproves Global Warming. Yeah, I hadn't heard about coral being a major producer of oxygen, being that coral reefs are limited to the south pacific regions. What I have heard about marine oxygen production though was that the great seaweed forests along the western coasts of the U.S. which produce allot of oxygen. However I have to agree with Nightmare here on trees. The tree to sea plant ratio has gotta be larger. I mean yeah theres more water than land, but such a large portion of the ocean can't sustain plant life. On land there are trees and plants everywhere So yeah, we're planting lots of trees here and trying to regrow the forests. Not to mention the amount of wild life conservation we do in other countries and continents. Personal Option: The U.N. sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Apr 28, 2008 2:53:32 GMT -5
Because corals are also plants that consume CO2. If there are no corals, uptake of CO2 is severely decreased and that's where the CO2 ends up in teh air - holding more and more heat.
I decided to check out that so-called Swindle movie, which SpeX did not provide me, a guest in this case, a summary of its detailed contents.
I'd rather believe in facts that are less criticized, more evidence-credible and accepted by the majority of mankind, oh say the UN IPCC report ... than even go for the former, oh say the Great Swindle, where its producers terribly twisted facts and truths to their own purposes, greatly criticized by the scientific community and has no credible evidence and has largely mistranslated honoured organizations.
The only thing that movie can do is swindle other people into believing that global warming and climate change is not accelerating in negative change and that everything is oh-so-heavenly-and-normal.
And again, thank goodness only a minority of the world population acknowledge it. Almost all scientists are credible, the remainder get shunned for life.
On a side note, what is your opinion that one day the Us government out of the blue signs the Kyoto Protocol?
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Apr 28, 2008 4:38:45 GMT -5
You might have a point there, but like SpEX and I said, the trees more than make up for that.
Like SpEX said, the title is pretty self explanitory, and why would he expect you to watch it if he told you everything it said?
Not all things that are "less criticized" or "more accepted" are right. Before the Civil War, slavery wasn't very heavily criticized, and was pretty well accepted.
Funny. When Farenheit 9/11 did that, everyone accepted it, but when this documentary tells the truth, it's twisting the facts... I guess anyone who agrees with you must be right, and everyone who says differently is "twisting the facts."
By "Scientific Community" you mean "Democrats" and by "has no credible evidence" you mean "doesn't acree with you", right?
I still think the people that buy into the Global Warming bullshit are the ones being swindled. And everything IS normal. It may be slightly hotter, or slightly colder, but it's normal because it's all a natrual part of the environment.
Actually, it's not that a majority of people are stupid enough to believe in Global Warming, it's that a majority of people who DON'T believe in it don't speak up, because it's not important, because it's not real. If I walked into a crowded room, and shouted "ICE CREAM" I'll only get responses from the people who really like Ice Cream, or really hate it. Just because the people who don't answer keep quiet, it doesn't mean they think one way or the other. You're assuming because there's more people who bitch about Global Warming than people who say it's crap, that a majority must believe in Global Warming. When in reality, all those people who don't say anything are more than likely not saying anything because they don't care. And why don't they care? Bingo, it's because they don't think it's a problem.
Not sure what that has to do with Global Warming, or even what you said. Looks like off-topic broken Grammar or something, but correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Professor Fann on Apr 28, 2008 9:44:43 GMT -5
Like SpEX said, the title is pretty self explanitory, and why would he expect you to watch it if he told you everything it said? Because he introduced me to it, that's why. It's proper I believe. Not all things that are "less criticized" or "more accepted" are right. Before the Civil War, slavery wasn't very heavily criticized, and was pretty well accepted. That is because the mentality and intelligence level of the people at the time are extremely low so as they don't even know or care anything about equality. Only the wise Abe Lincoln saw the importance of equality that time, and as you would have guessed, equality and justice won. People are more ignorant in those days than today's people are, and I most certainly don't expect you to fall down to their level of thought and ignorance, in this modern day of wisdom and knowledge. By "Scientific Community" you mean "Democrats" and by "has no credible evidence" you mean "doesn't acree with you", right? This has nothing to do with stupid Democrat-Republican politics. Global warming and climate change are issues tha affects everyone, not just America. Or else, they wouldn't hold that Bali conference last year with participants from all over the world. Many nations participated in those talks. Don't be so dumb and bluntly just assume that only America has scientists, basically everywhere else has scientists in labs too. By scientific community, I mean scientists all over the world. China, Russia, Australia, Brazil, Europe all have scientists too. And I am agreeing with the 98% pack of scientists who agree that the issue of climate change and global warming is undeniably real. Sheesh, why do you limit your eyes to just the Democrat-Republican squabble? Talk of science is everywhere, and it's not limited to just simple politicans. I still think the people that buy into the Global Warming bullcrap are the ones being swindled. And everything IS normal. It may be slightly hotter, or slightly colder, but it's normal because it's all a natrual part of the environment. Well, that's your opinion. Not sure what that has to do with Global Warming, or even what you said. Looks like off-topic broken Grammar or something, but correct me if I'm wrong. A brief typo. US government - the United States. The US is the world's largest emittor of carbon gases and pollutants and it is the only country that refuses to sign the Kyoto Protocol - the worldwide agreement to limit carbon emissions and indirectly, the acknowledgement that global warming and climae change are serious issues. Bush believes that limiting carbons will deteriorate the US economy - but it's already terrible anyway, with this events of recession and such - so that's why he refuses to sign it. He, just like you, also doubts that global warming is real. So, a President who signs the Kyoto Protocol admits that global warming is real, and I'd expect he or she may do something to the mindsets of the American people and reinforce any policies related to climate change and global warming. So ... what do you think and how'd you feel should something like that happen? That's why I said this is a side topic, but slightly related.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Apr 28, 2008 10:17:10 GMT -5
Well, I dunno about where you come from, but around these parts we usually don't spoil movies for people when we want them to watch them. Okay, first off, the intellegence level of people back then wasn't any lower really than it is now. We know more now, but that doesn't mean people were stupid back then. Second off, people knew of equality just fine, it's just that they didn't think black people deserved equality. I can't say I agree with that in the least, but that's what was "less criticized" and "accepted" back then. And not only President Lincoln "knew" or "Cared about" equality, obviously... If it was just one guy, there wouldn't have been a Civil War.. There would have been a lynching, and I'd have Micheal Jordan serving me tea right now. And finally, what makes you think people back then were any more ignorant than people now? The only difference is now people are ignorant about different stuff. And I don't expect me to "fall to their level of ignorance" either, whatever that's supposed to mean. Oh, and I wouldn't call this day and age as an age of "knowledge and wisdom." Have you seen the kids nowdays? They're dumber than sh!t, and people are just as stupid too, trying to eradicate Religion, other people blowing themselves up, and last but not least, people whining thinking the world is gonna end cause it got a little hotter. Doesn't sound very knowledgeable to me. I wouldn't say you're completely right, since this Global Warming nonsense was started cause our Democrats wanted to gain an edge in elections. But you're right, other nations have stupid people too. I should have said; "By "Scientific Community" you mean "idiots" and by "has no credible evidence" you mean "doesn't acree with you", right?" Idiots, Democrats. The words are pretty interchangable. XD You're right, not only America has scientists, buuut... China and Russia are communists, so if they can keep in power with Global Warming scare tactics, they'll do it... Australia is always hot, so they'll do anything to make it cooler over there... Brazil is full of drugs, so anything to take attention off of their drug problems... and Europe has France. Enough said. Though I'm not being totally serious, I should think you get the fact that I'm not totally impressed. And you keep saying "98% of scientists." I'd like to meet the guy who was stubborn enough to travel over the whole planet and count all the scientists and give him a pat on the back. Fact is, anyone can say a big number then stick a "%" behind it, and idiots will eat it up as if it were legit. I should know because I made up statistics all the time in my speech class and I was one of the most credible speakers. (Don't tell my teacher! XD) And I'm stickin to it. I'm behind the President 110% if he doesn't want to give into that Global Warming bullshit. There's a reason he won two terms.
|
|
|
Post by Captain SpExtacular on Apr 28, 2008 21:03:07 GMT -5
Powerful stuff there guys. Good debating.
Ice Cream?
Fann if you watched the movie it would have explained that scientist belong to a union like organization and what ever the leaders say, those scientists are counted for saying, despite what their opinions are. Not to mention if they did completely disprove global warming as a hoax then they would be ostracized from any and all scientific communities for going against the mainstream of thinking. But as history shows, all great ideas came from renegade scientist. To name a few Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Ben Franklin, Leonardo Di Vinci, and my personal favorite Nicoli Tesla. All of those scientists/inventors had renegade thoughts that were initially shunned by the world. But because of their persistence, dedication, and imagination they were able to push against what others thought and eventually become recognized as some of the worlds greatest minds.
Do not tell me that they were accepted by society. I have done so much freaking research, read so much history, and watched so many documentaries from the BBC and the History channel. My brain is like a sponge for history so you can double check things yourself, but seriously, my historical information is accurate. I'm not joking here, ask Nightmare. We were in school together for a long time.
That tidbit of information there was to prove that although a large majority of people may think one thing, it may not be entirely true, or be true at all. After all if it weren't for Columbus (or the Vikings for that matter) people probably wouldn't have realized the world was round for maybe sever hundred years later.
Especially do not dispute my knowledge on the Vikings. That is my heritage and have spent more time researching that than anything. I am a third generation Swede and Norwegian.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Apr 29, 2008 17:08:57 GMT -5
Taken from a Global Warming Survey. Sure looks like a majority of people agree that Global Warming is a problem, huh?
|
|