ForumsWEPRDo you believe in Global warming?

81 9067
fireangle
offline
fireangle
179 posts
50

I personaly think the politics do talk about this to scare us. Everyone is worried about how to stop Global warming when what we should be more worried about wheather it is caused by man. I believe Global warming does exist but it is just natural cycle that the Earth's average temprature goes through. Earth naturally heats and cools as time goes on and I think we should except the change than rather stop it.

  • 81 Replies
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,560 posts
4,140

Looks like Al Gore needs to come up with a sequel to his book. Something like "An Inconvenient Truth II: What the Hell is Wrong with You People!?"

It's like this. Politicians think Climate Change is an issue like civil rights and foreign relations -- something debatable. I'm sorry, but when it comes to Science, there is no Democracy about it. They don't get a vote. Well, that's in the perfect world. Apparently they don't understand what it means when a problem in the Biosphere is nearly-unanimously backed by Climatologists to be factual.

But now the majority of Britain doesn't believe in Climate Change either. I thought they were smarter than that. This is the home of Newton and Darwin. I can't believe we let their engineers build our exploding oil platforms!

Why don't people believe in Climate Change? Recently, it's because "we just had a snowy blizzard tear through the Midwest." Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. This is the problem with our minds to always see two sides of every issue equally. Especially when one of the parties has a lot of money and another depends on it. On one side, politicians who have no idea what they are talking about and have something to say. On the other side, every scientist in the world.

There is no debate to this phenomenon. Just scientists versus non-scientists with money. Since the topic is Science, the non-scientists don't.get.a.vote.

We shouldn't decide everything by polling everyone, especially when it is a topic of science that has been proven factual. This is the fallacy called Argumentum ad Numerum, where something is correct because great numbers believe it. So in other words "eat a pile of dog poop, because ten trillion flies can't be wrong."

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Why don't people believe in Climate Change?


There's two major reasons that I've seen that people give for it.

1) The misnomer of "Global Warming" and then citing a cold day.

2) Disbelief that emissions given off can have an effect on the global environment.

This is the problem with our minds to always see two sides of every issue equally


Everything is equally valid when you're equally ignorant of facts. What it boils down to, anyways.

On one side, politicians who have no idea what they are talking about and have something to say.


Don't forget your movie stars, pop idols, comedians and what not. Their word must be as good as a scientist's in regards to a science matter, right? Why else would they be famous?
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

1) The misnomer of "Global Warming" and then citing a cold day.

Proof that our modern "education" aint' doin' what twas' s'post' to.

2) Disbelief that emissions given off can have an effect on the global environment.

Kind of like going to the toilet in a spring and expecting the spring to be fresh.

Ignorance is unacceptable when it comes to this kind of crisis, where the world is in grave danger and acting later seals our fate. Scientists should be in command in many areas, what with their unanimous agreement that our world is in danger ('cept for them "religious scientists" who I always laugh at) because politicians know about as much about Climate Change as they know about the state of affairs in their own brains.

Don't forget your movie stars, pop idols, comedians and what not. Their word must be as good as a scientist's in regards to a science matter, right? Why else would they be famous?

Yes, you would probably need their approval to do anything in this place. I'm pretty sure most would be open to reason, and unlike politicians, they won't hold debates over it. I think.
thebloxxer
offline
thebloxxer
28 posts
350

I didn't say I don't acknowledge pollution. Just because I put "believe" doesen't mean I don't "acknowledge" it. Don't try to spin my words on me.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

Kind of like going to the toilet in a spring and expecting the spring to be fresh.

Even that relies on a number of factors (size of spring, if the water is moving or stagnant, etc). We can't say for certain the amount humans impact climate change. Sure, it has some effect, but is it akin to peeing in a bucket of water or in an ocean?
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

Al Gore needs to come up with a sequel to his book.

al gore used the wrong method to inform people about this.
he went in it like a bomb and asked way to much media attention for it at once.
he gave to much information at once. making people doubt the truth of it.

it's nice al gore gave it a try but he is not that useful on the topic anymore because people see him as a liar already. and will keep that same mind set if he would publish a 2nd book.

But now the majority of Britain doesn't believe in Climate Change either. I thought they were smarter than that.

the uk is like usa's puppy. they follow usa blindly.

Proof that our modern "education" aint' doin' what twas' s'post' to.

i know that i make allot of mistakes while typing. but what are you trying to say here?

religious scientists

a real religious scientist does not put any of his religious believes in his scientific projects. because it does not fit there.
if they do, they are not valid scientists.

Don't forget your movie stars, pop idols, comedians and what not. Their word must be as good as a scientist's in regards to a science matter, right? Why else would they be famous?

one of the other things that amazes me (in a bad way) from usa.
those people has not as profession to have a stand in the topic.
why the hell would you need there support? they are just people that got nothing to do whit it. why is their opinion so important on matters they should not have to care about.
but most of all, why are you guys taking their opinion so high? their opinion on it is just as important as that one of a average joe.

I didn't say I don't acknowledge pollution. Just because I put "believe" doesen't mean I don't "acknowledge" it. Don't try to spin my words on me.

there is nothing to believe. there is only to acknowledge.

the same whit global warming. it's not about believing in it yes or no. what matters is that you acknowledge global warming.

We can't say for certain the amount humans impact climate change.

take the statistic of population growth of the last 200 years and put it against the statistic of global warming rate of the last 200 years.
also check the industrial growth sprints in the late 1800, around 1920 and ever sins 1945. and put them down on the global warming rate. and you will see they line up pretty good.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

take the statistic of population growth of the last 200 years and put it against the statistic of global warming rate of the last 200 years.
also check the industrial growth sprints in the late 1800, around 1920 and ever sins 1945. and put them down on the global warming rate. and you will see they line up pretty good.


Here's a graph of emmissions:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/images/co2_emission_1800_2000.png

Here's a manufacturing graph:
http://british-studies.narod.ru/section2/class14/Graph_rel_share_world_manuf_1750_1900_02.png

And here's a graph of the decrease in pirates:
http://statfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/graph_pirates_gw.png

Correlation=/=Causation
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

the uk is like usa's puppy. they follow usa blindly.

That's not racist at all. Right?
a real religious scientist does not put any of his religious believes in his scientific projects. because it does not fit there.
if they do, they are not valid scientists.

Religious scientists being those fools who claim to be scientists but work for the churches, trying to prove the existence of God and uphold the stories in scripture.
i know that i make allot of mistakes while typing. but what are you trying to say here?

I did not quote you. What I said was entitling how the generations seem ill-informed about this, especially older generations, nowadays, kids receive education in this Climate Change area as well, but time will tell if they heed the warnings.

Palpatine, why is a graph of pirate numbers there? There are way more than 17. If I recall, South China Trade Routes are pretty dangerous, and it takes more than one group to hassle a trade route. It may be South China, I know for certain a route is dangerous.

Looking at the top graph, we see it all starts around 1850, the grand Industrial Revolution. No surprise there, we barely used powered machines until then.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

but most of all, why are you guys taking their opinion so high? their opinion on it is just as important as that one of a average joe.


People give them a heightened status, which then makes their opinions heightened

That's not racist at all. Right?


Not really..since he never mentioned race

Palpatine, why is a graph of pirate numbers there? There are way more than 17. If I recall, South China Trade Routes are pretty dangerous, and it takes more than one group to hassle a trade route. It may be South China, I know for certain a route is dangerous.


I think what he is trying to say is just because there is a correlation, it doesn't mean it is the cause (or that they are connected)
Correlation=/=Causation

This page explains how the correlation between CO2 and temperature prove nothing about causation
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

If one is to believe that page, how about we go on how we are for the next 100-200 years and see how well we turn out?

Sure, maybe the CO2 emissions do not cause climate change. That doesn't change the fact that we don't produce pure CO2. We throw up gas clouds of toxic chemicals, so much so that the very rain can become toxic.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

That's not racist at all. Right?

they are the same race. right?
well... there are allot of races in both countries.

uk doesn't ofcourse follow in the same steps. some things are even for uk to stupid.

Religious scientists being those fools who claim to be scientists but work for the churches, trying to prove the existence of God and uphold the stories in scripture.
i dont even consider them scientists really.

but time will tell if they heed the warnings.

we get to see in the years after the next kyoto accord. (that is in this or next year.) more countries will join the table this time. so, no more reason for usa to not join it.

People give them a heightened status, which then makes their opinions heightened

on the field of their profession yes.
on acting, singing, dancing, writing, etc, etc.
not on things there is no reason for that they know allot about it.

Palpatine, why is a graph of pirate numbers there?

the reason why i dont take his post serious.

This page explains how the correlation between CO2 and temperature prove nothing about causation

i stand corrected. it does however have a link.
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0801/2007GL032071/2007gl032071-op01-tn-350x.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png
"Graph of reconstructed temperature (blue), CO2 (green), and dust (red) from the Vostok ice core for the past 420,000 years"
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

it does however have a link.

maybe i should explain it except for just showing it.:

"The increase in CO2 concentration is the cause of the current warming. The measuring range of the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere shows that the concentration of about 387 ppm in 2010, is significantly higher than the peaks seen in the interglacials (less than 310 ppm). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not so high as 800,000 years now.

Research shows that the increase of CO2, about 35% since pre-industrial era, mainly due to the combustion of oil, gas and coal, and deforestation. This is mainly since the mid-twentieth century, led to an increase in global mean temperature.

A doubling of the CO2 concentration increases in global mean temperature after decades between 2 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. This is apparent both from observations and from climate models. A large part of this increase in temperature is caused by feedbacks. These are processes that amplify or dampen the rise in temperature. The main feedback is an increase in the concentration of water vapor, aerosols, and changes in the cloud cover. If we feedbacks aside, would a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the global mean temperature at the surface eventually by 1 degree Celsius rise.

The temperature rise through the enhanced greenhouse effect of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) may in the long term cause an additional increase of the CO2 concentration. This then causes additional warming. In addition, the acidification resulting from the uptake of CO2 in the oceans sure these oceans in the future probably fewer CO2 emissions record. There remains more of emissions from human activity in the atmosphere.
"

i hope you guys can follow it. sorry for the bad translation.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,412 posts
2,730

Palpatine, why is a graph of pirate numbers there? There are way more than 17.

Explained here. Andt doesn't count the kind that use modern weaponry, only the old-fashioned swashbucklers.

The measuring range of the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere shows that the concentration of about 387 ppm in 2010, is significantly higher than the peaks seen in the interglacials (less than 310 ppm).


This happened in 2010. Again, you can't say for certain the impact of natural occurances vs human activity.
From link:
"the volcano emitted about 150Ã-10^6 kg of CO2 per day."
And it did that for a month.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
4,560

that happened in iceland not all over the world.
and you seem to dismissing everything els for 1 volcano eruption? thats incredible.
there are always active volcanos. it has nothing to do whit the topic.


Explained here. Andt doesn't count the kind that use modern weaponry, only the old-fashioned swashbucklers.

short sighted...

also is your 2nd graph impossible.
uk does not produce 80% and the total is far above the 100%
i dunno where you got your stuff from but it's BS.
Masterforger
offline
Masterforger
1,829 posts
1,120

Does anyone here know about the Ozone Hole? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't, it bakes Antartica and not the Western Countries.

also is your 2nd graph impossible.
uk does not produce 80% and the total is far above the 100%
i dunno where you got your stuff from but it's BS.

Google knows much, and tells more. Why don't you look it up before throwing bottles around?
Showing 16-30 of 81