Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
so what are your views on Global Warming?
#1
OK let's not go down the name calling or "it was freezing here yesterday how can we have GW?" route.

Do you believe in man made G.W ing?

I know the earth goes through cycles. Maybe the numbers have been exagerated (not sure) on both sides...

There is a lot of B*S* propaganda...mostly from big oil.

But if you stick to the science of how it works and what is happening....then I say it's clearly really happening. I do not see how the planet can simply cope with billions of tons of extra, man made co2 pumped into the atmosphere every year without an effect. THe PPM numbers are the highest in millions of years...

A lot of older people dismiss it right away...it's more of an opinion/belief rather than actually looking into the facts.

  And you?

 Let's no got into a flame war....
Reply
#2
A smart man that knows a lot about that topic once told me that it's a scam designed to extract money. I am not "scientific", but I do believe him.
Reply
#3
(02-05-2019, 03:13 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote: A smart man that knows a lot about that topic once told me that it's a scam designed to extract money. I am not "scientific", but I do believe him.

This is probably false and another conspiracy theory. You might be wise to investigate it a little more in detail rather than taking the word of some smart guy. Was the guy an expert on environmental science. Though it sounds like it doesn't really interest you so probably doesn't matter anyways.

(02-05-2019, 02:25 PM)jimjohnson Wrote: OK let's not go down the name calling or "it was freezing here yesterday how can we have GW?" route.

Do you believe in man made G.W ing?

I know the earth goes through cycles. Maybe the numbers have been exagerated (not sure) on both sides...

There is a lot of B*S* propaganda...mostly from big oil.

But if you stick to the science of how it works and what is happening....then I say it's clearly really happening. I do not see how the planet can simply cope with billions of tons of extra, man made co2 pumped into the atmosphere every year without an effect. THe PPM numbers are the highest in millions of years...

A lot of older people dismiss it right away...it's more of an opinion/belief rather than actually looking into the facts.

  And you?

 Let's no got into a flame war....
I admit I'm not an expert on global warming, but I've listened to some scientists who are experts in this area. One video I found to be helpful is by a YT vlogger and scientist (at least he seems to be one) by the name of potholer54. He debunks some of the myths on global warming and gives some very thought-out reasons as to why climate-change deniers have distorted views on the nature climate cycles and he also analyzes the climate-deniers theories and finds a large ton of contradictions that don't align with reality. I don't have all the knowledge necessary to make a good judgement on how much of the global warming is actually caused by humans, but I speculate we are contributing quite a bit and it's not just some natural cycle of the climate. Some climate change deniers will refer to the OISM Petition Project to deny climate change is real or that it's some natural phenomena. It had about 31,000 scientists sign the petition. Sounds pretty convincing... except all these scientists were not experts in the area of environmental science/global change. In other words, the OISM Petition is a manipulative ploy used to convince people that climate change isn't real. 

As for being used a a money scam? Not really.

(02-05-2019, 03:13 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote: A smart man that knows a lot about that topic once told me that it's a scam designed to extract money. I am not "scientific", but I do believe him.

Nonetheless I will actually provide you with an overview on US federal spending referring from two government links. 

1. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_c...ue_summary

It states that in 1993 we were spending approx. 2.4 billion on funds to combat global warming. In 2014 it increased to about 11.6 billion. Within 20 years the spending gradually increased by about 9 billion. About 450 million increase each year. 

2. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge.../spending/

Funds going to science fall under discretionary spending which is the portion of budget that Congress decides through the annual appropriations process. In the fiscal year of 2015 you will notice a pie chart that shows the percentages of funds being distributed, including science "as a whole" which not only includes climate change, but other scientific fields like nuclear power research, electronic chip development, etc. Over half the budget of discretionary spending goes to the military or about half a trillion dollars in 2015. Energy and environment make up only 39.14 billion or about 3.51% of the total discretionary budget. Relative to military spending and education, that is an extremely small amount.

Funding for global warming gets barely any funding by these standards. In other words, it's not really a money scam, because these scientists and their foundations for global climate prevention struggle to get any funds at all. Military spending is actually quite wasteful cause most of the military hardware we make isn't even put into field combat and sits idle at some military base. 

Don't refer to someone's word. Even if the subject doesn't interest you it takes a few minutes to check these basic facts.
Reply
#4
(02-05-2019, 04:48 PM)locutus24 Wrote: This is probably false and another conspiracy theory. You might be wise to investigate it a little more in detail rather than taking the word of some smart guy. Was the guy an expert on environmental science. Though it sounds like it doesn't really interest you so probably doesn't matter anyways.

I admit I'm not an expert on global warming, but I've listened to some scientists who are experts in this area. One video I found to be helpful is by a YT vlogger and scientist (at least he seems to be one) by the name of potholer54. He debunks some of the myths on global warming and gives some very thought-out reasons as to why climate-change deniers have distorted views on the nature climate cycles and he also analyzes the climate-deniers theories and finds a large ton of contradictions that don't align with reality. I don't have all the knowledge necessary to make a good judgement on how much of the global warming is actually caused by humans, but I speculate we are contributing quite a bit and it's not just some natural cycle of the climate. Some climate change deniers will refer to the OISM Petition Project to deny climate change is real or that it's some natural phenomena. It had about 31,000 scientists sign the petition. Sounds pretty convincing... except all these scientists were not experts in the area of environmental science/global change. In other words, the OISM Petition is a manipulative ploy used to convince people that climate change isn't real. 

As for being used a a money scam? Not really.


Nonetheless I will actually provide you with an overview on US federal spending referring from two government links. 

1. https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_c...ue_summary

It states that in 1993 we were spending approx. 2.4 billion on funds to combat global warming. In 2014 it increased to about 11.6 billion. Within 20 years the spending gradually increased by about 9 billion. About 450 million increase each year. 

2. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budge.../spending/

Funds going to science fall under discretionary spending which is the portion of budget that Congress decides through the annual appropriations process. In the fiscal year of 2015 you will notice a pie chart that shows the percentages of funds being distributed, including science "as a whole" which not only includes climate change, but other scientific fields like nuclear power research, electronic chip development, etc. Over half the budget of discretionary spending goes to the military or about half a trillion dollars in 2015. Energy and environment make up only 39.14 billion or about 3.51% of the total discretionary budget. Relative to military spending and education, that is an extremely small amount.

Funding for global warming gets barely any funding by these standards. In other words, it's not really a money scam, because these scientists and their foundations for global climate prevention struggle to get any funds at all. Military spending is actually quite wasteful cause most of the military hardware we make isn't even put into field combat and sits idle at some military base. 

Don't refer to someone's word. Even if the subject doesn't interest you it takes a few minutes to check these basic facts.

I am so glad we can finally agree on something. 

Trutheeker is not correct about everything. I remember him writing a article where he mentioned climate change being a scam a few years ago and I didn't buy it.

Look at the great barrier reef deteriorating at a alarming rate. Its not a conspiracy. The amazon forest is next and is being diminished more and more each year. Granted this is not climate change and is mans direct doing, but that gigantic forest exorbs so much carbon and we are rapidly destroying it for more development. ARE WE INSANE?

Governments will sell and destroy what isnt theirs to give, and the poorest of the poor will be the first to suffer from the decisions of the elite in politics.

We are burning the trees to feed our fires. A tree takes 5 - 20 years on average to grow. A fire burns out after 2 - 3 hours.
"Grave digger when you dig my grave, can you make it shallow, so that I can feel the rain"

Dave Matthews
Reply
#5
(02-05-2019, 05:49 PM)Brett Wrote: I am so glad we can finally agree on something. 

Trutheeker is not correct about everything. I remember him writing a article where he mentioned climate change being a scam a few years ago and I didn't buy it.

Look at the great barrier reef deteriorating at a alarming rate. Its not a conspiracy. The amazon forest is next and is being diminished more and more each year. Granted this is not climate change and is mans direct doing, but that gigantic forest exorbs so much carbon and we are rapidly destroying it for more development. ARE WE INSANE?

Governments will sell and destroy what isnt theirs to give, and the poorest of the poor will be the first to suffer from the decisions of the elite in politics.

We are burning the trees to feed our fires. A tree takes 5 - 20 years on average to grow. A fire burns out after 2 - 3 hours.
Definitely Brett. Glad we are both logical and in agreement. 

My argument actually doesn't completely dispute it's a scam. For instance, even if the global change researchers aren't receiving as much money as other industries doesn't dispute the possibility of scam. Scammers can still be scammers yet not get very much money. 

But here is the real proof. First let's assume that global warming is real (which will be shown below as being likely true) and is a severe danger to humanity. We need countermeasures to stop or reduce its damage. Therefore we need scientists who are expertise on environmental science (e.g. ones who understand plate tectonics, ocean ecology, weather patterns, etc.) Those scientists also need research equipment (which generally is expensive) to carry out experiments to verify what "exact" human activities are directly causing the damage. They also deserve salaries for the work that they do. They are working to prevent global disasters which could lead to mass starvations, flooding of cities, and the list goes on. Would you want to be a scientist with a PhD working 8-10 hour shifts in a cold lab and NOT get paid for your work? I don't think so man. Saying their research institutes is a scam and don't deserve any funding is blatantly idiotic Truthseeker. 

They deserve salaries for the research they do and they "need" funding to carry out experiments. Many actually end up working in the industry of alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind energy. Burning of fossil fuels is bad for the atmosphere and funding is needed to develop those alternative energy technologies as well. In the end, the global disaster fighters need money and they are not using it to profit themselves. Majority of the scientists working in climate change earn what most other scientists earn and are not some group of greedy people hoping to get profits in the name of a made-up-tale of climate change due to man. 

Proof of global warming: Most evidence comes from the theory of CO2 emissions eating the Ozone layer and causing the temperature to unnaturally increase. Physical evidence in the world includes the rising sea level, the ozone layer deteriorating, and the sudden disappearance of a majority of necessary animals to maintain ecosystems which humans are dependent on for food. A good example is coral reefs as Brett mentioned and also honey bees, which are needed to pollinate flowers. When coral reef wildlife disappears it affects other sea aquatic creatures, which in turn affects human societies that depend on seafood, such as Japan. No seafood means less food overall and means that people could starve or be on rations. 

On bees: Here is an excerpt from a NASA research page. "Many agricultural crops, on the order of $14 billion dollars worth, depend upon domesticated bee hives to help with pollination, and some, such as almonds are 100% dependent upon the honey bee for pollination." https://honeybeenet.gsfc.nasa.gov/Honeybees.htm (the link is old so it requires authentication to enter the site)

Honey bees disappearance is still under debate, but one fact considered is habitat destruction which humans are known for doing since the industrial revolution. They haven't completely disappeared and some colonies have returned to closer to normal population levels, but they are still in the category of being considered "close to endangered." Safe to assume that global warming may be indirectly affecting them.

Climate change deniers most popular counter argument is that warming/cooling of the earth's global temperature is a natural phenomenon by looking at past ice core records, which show the rising and falling of Earth's temperature. They say "look the spikes have always happened in the past due to non-man made mechanisms so it must be natural now. The faulty reasoning is that these deniers don't have an alternative model to explain what causes today's supposed natural mechanism. On the other hand global climate change scientists have valid models which have been tested to be true or mostly true.

Another thing to consider is that the spikes in the past happened at a far slower pace than today's spike. It took roughly 100,000 years for the spike to reach a high temperature, which is a rate that is 10 times slower than today's spike, so clearly something un-natural must be causing the new spike. Coincidentally (not really) this rapid spike that is 10 times faster than previous spikes has occurred around the same time that CO2 emissions have increased exponentially due to more gas-powered cars. China for example is considered a leading contributor to CO2 emissions ever since it became more capitalist which allowed more Chinese citizens to own and operate vehicles. I lived there for a summer and it is very smoggy there. 

Another thing to consider is that a majority of climate-change deniers have close ties with fossil-fuel companies so it's in their best interest to support oil companies and deny climate change. Trump's government has the same mentality which is unfortunate. 

So all evidence considered and having shown climate change deniers claims to be very faulty, we can conclude with high probability that climate change is due to man-made activities and is crippling other innocent ecosystems, which in the end will cripple us. 

Truthseeker; you may not care about this post or anything I just said since you are generally not caring of the world and like to think of it as nothing but a big cesspool of greedy and evil scientists and politicians, but your argument is WRONG.

I'm repeating myself. I feel I just wasted typing on here as well since it doesn't matter as this is a random forum on the internet full of certain people who can't be reasoned with. Idk why I type essays on here. I guess I'm just another keyboard warrior. lol
Reply
#6
I think it scam think about it they show you the worse pics it all ways on news . all that government did was kill lots tress ,oiled animal and made lots dirt products in water and nukes and wars . what you don't get is all what happen in nature, it is Recycle bases those earthquakes and other things that nature does would of all ways happen . it not nature but the wars and nukes you got to worry about that would destroy th plant with radiation.

nature is the true god of the world business men hate it because it doesn't function on money and cant buy our be sold . not saying recycling doesn't help because it makes less rubbish and stuff . the government has tools actually to make it all environment frenziedly but that doesn't make money. Cheap silly things make more profit. if ice age happen it did because it was just time for it to do so .

nature was all ways dangers to us, man vs nature guess what nature all ways wins . we humans are not bigger than it we never were . predator that will all ways beat us unless we live within nature and work together rather than nuking each other .

also don't know this guy but it good agreement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
Reply
#7
(02-05-2019, 08:29 PM)locutus24 Wrote: Definitely Brett. Glad we are both logical and in agreement. 

My argument actually doesn't completely dispute it's a scam. For instance, even if the global change researchers aren't receiving as much money as other industries doesn't dispute the possibility of scam. Scammers can still be scammers yet not get very much money. 

But here is the real proof. First let's assume that global warming is real (which will be shown below as being likely true) and is a severe danger to humanity. We need countermeasures to stop or reduce its damage. Therefore we need scientists who are expertise on environmental science (e.g. ones who understand plate tectonics, ocean ecology, weather patterns, etc.) Those scientists also need research equipment (which generally is expensive) to carry out experiments to verify what "exact" human activities are directly causing the damage. They also deserve salaries for the work that they do. They are working to prevent global disasters which could lead to mass starvations, flooding of cities, and the list goes on. Would you want to be a scientist with a PhD working 8-10 hour shifts in a cold lab and NOT get paid for your work? I don't think so man. Saying their research institutes is a scam and don't deserve any funding is blatantly idiotic Truthseeker. 

They deserve salaries for the research they do and they "need" funding to carry out experiments. Many actually end up working in the industry of alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind energy. Burning of fossil fuels is bad for the atmosphere and funding is needed to develop those alternative energy technologies as well. In the end, the global disaster fighters need money and they are not using it to profit themselves. Majority of the scientists working in climate change earn what most other scientists earn and are not some group of greedy people hoping to get profits in the name of a made-up-tale of climate change due to man. 

Proof of global warming: Most evidence comes from the theory of CO2 emissions eating the Ozone layer and causing the temperature to unnaturally increase. Physical evidence in the world includes the rising sea level, the ozone layer deteriorating, and the sudden disappearance of a majority of necessary animals to maintain ecosystems which humans are dependent on for food. A good example is coral reefs as Brett mentioned and also honey bees, which are needed to pollinate flowers. When coral reef wildlife disappears it affects other sea aquatic creatures, which in turn affects human societies that depend on seafood, such as Japan. No seafood means less food overall and means that people could starve or be on rations. 

On bees: Here is an excerpt from a NASA research page. "Many agricultural crops, on the order of $14 billion dollars worth, depend upon domesticated bee hives to help with pollination, and some, such as almonds are 100% dependent upon the honey bee for pollination." https://honeybeenet.gsfc.nasa.gov/Honeybees.htm (the link is old so it requires authentication to enter the site)

Honey bees disappearance is still under debate, but one fact considered is habitat destruction which humans are known for doing since the industrial revolution. They haven't completely disappeared and some colonies have returned to closer to normal population levels, but they are still in the category of being considered "close to endangered." Safe to assume that global warming may be indirectly affecting them.

Climate change deniers most popular counter argument is that warming/cooling of the earth's global temperature is a natural phenomenon by looking at past ice core records, which show the rising and falling of Earth's temperature. They say "look the spikes have always happened in the past due to non-man made mechanisms so it must be natural now. The faulty reasoning is that these deniers don't have an alternative model to explain what causes today's supposed natural mechanism. On the other hand global climate change scientists have valid models which have been tested to be true or mostly true.

Another thing to consider is that the spikes in the past happened at a far slower pace than today's spike. It took roughly 100,000 years for the spike to reach a high temperature, which is a rate that is 10 times slower than today's spike, so clearly something un-natural must be causing the new spike. Coincidentally (not really) this rapid spike that is 10 times faster than previous spikes has occurred around the same time that CO2 emissions have increased exponentially due to more gas-powered cars. China for example is considered a leading contributor to CO2 emissions ever since it became more capitalist which allowed more Chinese citizens to own and operate vehicles. I lived there for a summer and it is very smoggy there. 

Another thing to consider is that a majority of climate-change deniers have close ties with fossil-fuel companies so it's in their best interest to support oil companies and deny climate change. Trump's government has the same mentality which is unfortunate. 

So all evidence considered and having shown climate change deniers claims to be very faulty, we can conclude with high probability that climate change is due to man-made activities and is crippling other innocent ecosystems, which in the end will cripple us. 

Truthseeker; you may not care about this post or anything I just said since you are generally not caring of the world and like to think of it as nothing but a big cesspool of greedy and evil scientists and politicians, but your argument is WRONG.

I'm repeating myself. I feel I just wasted typing on here as well since it doesn't matter as this is a random forum on the internet full of certain people who can't be reasoned with. Idk why I type essays on here. I guess I'm just another keyboard warrior. lol

Nice essay. This time I mean it.

You write them because like me you feel frustrated in real life, and this forum is one of the few places where we can express our thoughts and opinions or just reflect on how we feel without needing to worry about politically correct backlash.
"Grave digger when you dig my grave, can you make it shallow, so that I can feel the rain"

Dave Matthews
Reply
#8
(02-06-2019, 06:42 AM)Brett Wrote: Nice essay. This time I mean it.

You write them because like me you feel frustrated in real life, and this forum is one of the few places where we can express our thoughts and opinions or just reflect on how we feel without needing to worry about politically correct backlash.
Thanks Brett.

Sometimes they are more objective. Yeah, it's what I call a true refuge. I've been on a few other forums, but this one to me is better because of the small # of users on here. We're like a small pack of wolves or something and free to speak our minds.
Reply
#9
(02-05-2019, 03:13 PM)TruthSeeker Wrote: A smart man that knows a lot about that topic once told me that it's a scam designed to extract money. I am not "scientific", but I do believe him.

OK...so what his is reasoning behind that claim?

He must be able to look at recent global temp increases....and explain this.

If he knows so much..ask him to explain to us

(02-05-2019, 05:49 PM)Brett Wrote: I am so glad we can finally agree on something. 

Trutheeker is not correct about everything. I remember him writing a article where he mentioned climate change being a scam a few years ago and I didn't buy it.

Look at the great barrier reef deteriorating at a alarming rate. Its not a conspiracy. The amazon forest is next and is being diminished more and more each year. Granted this is not climate change and is mans direct doing, but that gigantic forest exorbs so much carbon and we are rapidly destroying it for more development. ARE WE INSANE?

Governments will sell and destroy what isnt theirs to give, and the poorest of the poor will be the first to suffer from the decisions of the elite in politics.

We are burning the trees to feed our fires. A tree takes 5 - 20 years on average to grow. A fire burns out after 2 - 3 hours.

When people label it a scam....etc without any proof of the scam I am a bit puzzled.

1) Co2 in the atmopshere does increase temperature

2) We pump god knows how many billions of tons into the air

3) Temp's are REALLY rising

   Why are these facts a scam? 

I can see a huge difference in the climate from the 70's to now...that's not a natural cycle. What normally takes thousands of years to happen has been sped up massively. 

  I guess people that don't want to believe...seek evidence to back up that claim...True for people who want to believe...

BUT if you simply look at the facts.....it's pretty swaying for man made G.W ing

I don't know some people get so excited and angry over GWing topics.

I am not a denier nor a believer...i simply seek the facts and make my mind up...and right now I am 99% convinced in man made GW'ng.
" in the denier camp.

"In the Land of the Blind the One Eyed Man Is King"
Reply
#10
To me the fact is this it was hotter in past and it colder than ever just nature going in circles and being reacyle base. That all I know my other beliefs is this, if Isis is fake why not this why would media make you worry about it everything media shows is to benefit them .you never know the real news.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)