I will tell you why, In a week when I am done with my argument essay for class.


you are on the edge of your seat now aren't you.

Global Warming is history, it's Climate Change now

Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.

might want to beef up your security before an environutt reads it.

you wouldn't happen to have some time to explain how trees can grow in an atmosphere with only 0.0395% CO2, would you? I'm having problems imagining how they can get so big with so little to breathe. are they sucking it out of the ground instead of the air?

Not true, Red.

There is not "doubt" in academia about the factual truth of global warming -- the only place there's doubt is within the weak minds of Republican politicians who have been paid to ignore scientific fact by the oil industry.

The "hockey stick" is actually worse than was originally thought.

And the solution isn't wind or solar - it's actually thorium due to the safety of the process which can be used to generate power from that naturally occurring radioactive element. The technology for thorium was available in the 1960's before GE had finalized the sale of its uranium reactors to the rest of the world.. and, just like the way oil producers have bought the conversation around global warming, GE made sure the nuclear choice was uranium rather than thorium. The technology is of course still available, it just hasn't been implemented yet due to GE's political connections.

The only question is how to generate energy safely.. global warming is the final result of poor choices around energy generation.

your face doesn't exist

bundle bags that convert sexual motion into electrical power that can be stored efficiently. wish they'd come up with a new term to replace "academia". with me being part squirrel it always makes me think of Academia Nuts. is that supposed to start with an M?

crap. that reminds me that I'll have to relearn how to use a slide rule when we run out of oil. how the heck am i supposed to play Q2 WoD on a slide rule?

hmmm, are we supposed to help you with your argument essay? callipygian gave up arguing on these forums. and i haven't seen Epi or whatsits post recently.

and why do Academia Nuts need to sponge off the rich people or the public if they're so bloidy dang smart. should be able to get all their funding by playing the stock market.

Sounds great!

Before that happens, though: Oil executives need to give up both their government subsidy and their publically funded support of raw material acquisition -- aka the US Armed Forces.

don't push it, or we'll demand that you quit popping acid.

No help needed. Just wanted to stir up a post
I have to make it a research paper so if someone is actually
Interested in reading it ill post or email it to them :)

i think before humans were even alive the climate changed entirely on it's own

until we nuclear winter the planet, i'm pretty sure it will do what it wants, regardless of what we have to say, heh

Organisms can affect climate. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

@dibs if every academia nut was capable of making money on the stock market I would have picked a different field. I have a lot of friends from college that are genius engineers and scientists and they all pay ppl like me to invest their money for them.

And as far as climate change I like bradens synopsis. And I don't care how many environment experts/fanatics are out there saying we're killing our earth. I don't have a "the worlds screwed let it spin" attitude but I'm not for anything that takes money out of US pockets. So when someone comes up with a solution that is going to save energy, protect environment, and not take money from any American company whether it be Exxon, GE, or the No-name gas station down the street from me owned by the Indian dude, show me where to check off my voters box.

hmm..

money out of US pockets

global warming

oil

lots of it must be imported

costs a lot of money

money leaves US

I'm sorry but that is an irrational stance. You need to consider the counter-factual. Climate change stands to hurt the US economy a lot more than actions to prevent climate change will.
Thus you are hurting the economy some to mitigate against it being hurt much more down the line.

Secondly, who gives a crap whether it is caused by humans or not? you are busy arguing about whether it is our fault when in the end it is completely irrelevant whose fault it is (if anyone's). We will have to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change regardless of who is "at fault", and frankly who is at fault is not important.

I don't understand how all the morons out there have managed to connect the issues of "whose fault is this?" and "do we need to do anything to mitigate against this?"

Completely retarded.

I think it kind of follows that if we haven't caused it, what could we possibly do to mitigate it? If all the stuff we've done still hasn't caused anything, how can reversing what already has done nothing, do anything? That is the thought process there. Show we are causing climate change and how to mitigate it as DStone says and I'll sign on as well.

I'm not talking about mitigating the climate change itself, I'm talking about mitigating climate change's impacts on our societies...

Does anyone here who doesn't believe humans can affect the climate have any actual arguments to support their thinking?

The fact that the climate changes on it's own is in itself not an argument against the possibility of humans to affect climate as well.

Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, this is a well established fact. Saying it's not is akin to claiming the Earth is flat or only 6000 years old. We're releasing vast amounts of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere thus it makes sense this can affect climate. What are the arguments against this line of reasoning?

isn't water a greenhouse gas? isn't it's percentage a bit higher than CO2? Britannica puts it at 0 to 4%, yet you blame CO2.

Water vapour contributes more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, this is true. That water vapour has a larger effect isn't good news however.
CO2 still accounts for about 20% of the effect and as more is put in the atmosphere the greenhouse effect gets stronger leading to higher temperatures. Higher temperatures means more water evaporates which then further adds to higher temperatures.

yes water is a greenhouse gas, but the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapour is based on current temperature.

Thus as global warming continues due to other factors (you can argue whether it is due to man made CO2 or something else all you like, but I agree with Mags that denying CO2 is a factor is niave) the saturation point of water vapour in the atmosphere increases and by extension the greenhouse/global warming effect increases.

Thus water vapour isn't a root cause of the issue, but now that global warming is occurring for other reasons water vapour will compound the issue.

<added on edit> This is similar to how global warming is causing the polar ice coverage to reduce, which in turn compounds global warming. Or how the permafrost in the north is thawing and causing dead plant/animal matter that was trapped in the permafrost to release into the atmosphere, thus compounding global warming.

other reasons? did the ice age end when man invented the steam engine?

Does anyone here who doesn't believe that God, Jesus, or any other deity exists have any actual arguments to support their thinking?

Of course they do, and atheists make them all the time. In fact they have much stronger arguments than those who argue the other side.

Research does not support your post. Change your thesis to global warming is real and then you will have research to include.

Detmer there is research in both directions :)

Of course your selective reading might not reveal that hehe

rofl @ h4

Pseudo-studies funded by pro-carbon-emissions special interests don't count as research. The beyond-overwhelming majority of studies show that global warming is real. Anyone who has tried to understand climate research and has not drawn that conclusion is simply not capable of synthesizing even basic information to come to a logical understanding (or is possibly not capable of trying to research a topic properly).

Red-X you are a gargantuan flesh-tool, you know that right? Enormous, like the size of a Buick.

Its like watching lungfish emerge from the mud after a drought. Not a pretty sight.

A fluffing Buick.

The average American would make more of an impact by eliminating and average of 1 serving of chicken a week than they would driving a hybrid car for the rest of their life.

While I respect the climate-change folks in what they are doing, they are profiting a LOT by pushing this cause. If they were not profiting as much as they are, I would take them a little bit more seriously. It seems to me that once a study is disproved they come out with a new name and a new idea of what climate change really is and how to move forward. While the folks leading the charge are not practicing what they preach.

That's a small amount of generalization you've done there, but that's not my point. My point is, it takes the same type of thinking to try to disprove the existence of a deity as it does to try to disprove the human effects in climate change. Trying to prove that something *doesn't* exist is impossible because of the possibility that it *may* exist either somewhere else now, or it *may* exist here in the future. We may not have had a big impact on our climate in the past, but we may have a very large impact on it now.

Says someone with no sources whatsoever.

No, Requiem, there is not "research in both directions" -- there's scientists on one side and the equivalent of Dr. Phil on the other. The one actual scientist at an accredited university who attempted to "prove" that global warming didn't exist.. ended up throwing the middle finger to the Koch Brothers and publically said that he agreed humans were forcing climate change via carbon emissions.

You want to assert that peer-reviewed studies exist showing global warming doesn't exist? [To be clear: Non-peer-reviewed journals don't count.] Show the links.

If you don't post them, you're a liar.

"Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree."


http://www.desmogblog.com/...ity-science-one-pie-chart

Mighty funny coming from a guy who works in the oil industry.

ask and you shall receive

http://www.peta.org/...meat-and-environment.aspx

http://ezinearticles.com/...Less-Meat!&id=2402923

I cant find the video atm but I saw a video a month or so ago with a peta rep explaining it into further detail.

IPCC ~ International Petroleum Control Committee
WHO ~ Worldwide Hysteria Organization

Dibs Ludicrous encourages the IPCC to eschew fuliginous science in favor of straightforward factual science.

wow. this dictionary thingie is fun.

LOL!!!!
I support this post

Bonus carbon emissions.

just out of curiosity, are glaciers protected from mankind? Saw something about man causing alot of avalanches to keep skiers safer. is it limited to a minor area, or is mankind killing all the glaciers by blowing them to bits?

Not sure how that is funny. I fully support the development of green technologies and energy sources. Just because I help provide the energy necessary for today's society does not mean I think we should (or can) be content with the status quo.

mdevol, at least you have sources who allege their sources even if they didn't cite them. I am a bit skeptical on the one serving of chicken thing. Beef seems much more plausible to me. The thing that I am most skeptical of in your post though are the profit allegations of "climate-change folks".

http://notrickszone.com/...up-the-science-to-cash-i/

http://revolutionaryenvironmentalism.blogspot.com/...fraud-carbon-profits.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/...climate-change&page=3

while those are shaky at best the illustrate the general idea of who is going to profit the most. GE for example, pushing HARD the idea, while they conveniently have a developed market in place to take on all of the green products being demanded. You can also look at the SOLYNDRA mess. As well as Al Gore making hundereds of millions off of the green agenda that he is pushing.

I am not trying to disprove this at all. I am simply offering a different side or the argument. I personally dont know what to think. I know that we could be more conscious of how we treat the environment and recycling is a nobrainer of an idea. I also think that the impact we are making is so minimal on the atmosphere that we will simply run out of raw materials and food to survive long before we deplete the ozone layer enough to kill ourselves off. Especially at the pace we are using them and populating /me looks at China and India.

y'all didn't answer my question about how plants grow so big off of the miniscule portion of CO2 in the apnosphere. if the plants ain't getting the carbon to get bigger from the atmosphere, then they're sucking it out of the ground and it's not safe to let them keep on doing it because they'll eventually die and rot letting the greenhouse gases get out into the apnosphere.

Dibs, we could do the math and figure out how many tons (metric, short or long) of CO2 there is in the atmosphere, I am just too lazy.

However, where forests can grow freely, like the Russian taiga, the giant belt of forest going through north eastern Europe and Asia is growing rapidly in an attempt to combat the increased CO2 in the air.


My personal thoughts on carbon emissions: oil and coal is essentially dead and compressed dinosaurs plants, and a few dinosaurs themselves, right?
The global temperature was higher in the earlier eras of dinosaur, when the plants were small and most of the CO2 was still in the air.
If we humans throw all that carbon back in the air, it stands to reason that temperature will go up a little.



About humans having no effect on the environment, that is just grade a bull crap. Just take a look at the grand garbage piles in the worlds oceans, or at all the seas that have almost no fish, the man made environmental disasters due to deforestation or oil spills.



As stated above, the fact is that global temperatures go up, to claim anything else is to be naïve. At this point arguing about who caused what is a little like North Korea doing their posturing.



Ok, so the environment agenda people make money, so are the "climate skeptics" aka oil and nuclear industries, car industries, meat industries, mining industries, yet you happily buy their products and defend their stance.

i only buy the products because they have a bunch of bright flashy lights. well, except for the meat i suppose.

you state that the trees are growing to combat the CO2? why wouldn't they be growing faster simply because it's easier for them to get their CO2? kinda like how we have an obesity problem because people don't have to do any work to get their food.

we have to argue about who's to blame simply so people will be able to sue for a living.

Unsympathetic & H4 are correct ^^

Fortunately for me, I live 2200 feet above sea level, in the most northerly city in North America with a metro pop. over 1M people, in an area of the world where the worst-case temperature change maps by the end of the century show only a 1C increase, due to the central continental nature...

So I'm good to go, we might have to grow start growing more of our own food though when California gets even hotter & drier...