Global Warming

[Kilala]

I’m pretty sure that I couldn’t find a thread in here concerning global warming. So if this is truly the case I would like to create one. My apologies if this is a remake!

Global warming is by now an issue we’re all very much aware of. It’s particularly installed into me as my father has come somewhat obsessed with it and now his job is involved in ways to help conserve our planet.
A brief explanation as to what ‘Global Warming’ is…. It’s actually quite self explanatory. When the Earth suffers from an increase in temperature – this is known as Global Warming. It occurs when the ‘Greenhouse Gases’ (Such as Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane etc.) trap heat and light from our Sun in the Earth’s atmosphere, thus meaning an imminent increase of the Earths temperature. This change may sound simple, but it certainly has a dramatic effect on many different areas. It can and does pose to be a danger to mankind, animals and nature. The consequences could be dire if no action is maintained to stop, or reduce the damage we have caused.
As for an actual statistic, global surface temperature has risen 0.74 ± 0.18 °C during the last century.

Next I’d just like to expand upon the Greenhouse Effect, and what is actually is. The Greenhouse Effect actually refers to the ‘chance’ in the steady state temperature of a planet (in our case Earth ^~) or even a moon, by the presence of an atmosphere which contains gas which absorbs and gives off infrared radiation. As I mentioned earlier, Greenhouse Gases include water vapour (oops I left that one out!), Carbon Dioxide, Methane etc. These gases tend to warm the atmosphere by proficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation released by the Earth’s surface – by the atmosphere itself AND by clouds!
Most importantly and it has to be said, life on this plant actually depends on energy from the Sun. That’s basic science and we all know it. Approximately 30% of the light given off by the sun that is sent to Earth is deflected by the Outer Atmosphere and scattered back into the large and looming area we call Space. The light that manages to get through and reach the Earth’s surfaces is reflected back up as a type of slow-moving energy known as infrared radiation.
As it rises, the greenhouse gases perform and absorb the infrared radiation (look up to recap on the gases if you forgot them :3). This slows it’s escape from the atmosphere.
Greenhouse Gases infact regulate our climate conditions – by trapping heat and holding it in. Think of a nice fleece blanket for example, wrapped around the Earth.
This marvel is what in fact the scientists of our world call “The Greenhouse Effect.” If we were to be without this mechanism it is said that the average temperature on our planet would actually cooler by about 30 degrees Celcius! Current ecosystems would not be here if that were to be the case. So in fact – we can’t live without it either.

Ever heard of too much of a good thing? Well that’s the case we have here… Humans have accelerated the volume of these gases. Now we have too many of these gases which is necessary – and as a result temperatures are rising!

How are we contributing to the problem? Many things cause Global Warming. First off I will use an example on which we are all guilty of… Having. Using. And abusing. In a word… Electricity. One of the main contributors is Electrical Pollution. Electricity is able to cause pollution in a multitude of ways – some worse than others. One of the more common examples of this is in the case of ‘Fossil Fuels’. Fossil fuels are burnt to create the electricity we use – and by burning them we in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for example. Many other pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere when we burn these… And after time they just accumulate. Like they have now.
Some other simple examples of using energy and polluting the air that we breath are as follows:
- Turning on a light. (And leaving it on for that matter… like when you exit the room.)
- Watching the TV. (How many of us are guilty of leaving it on when we leave the room as well? Just like a light switch.)
- Listening to the stero.
- Playing a video game <_<

Etc… etc… Not only is it electrical pollution, but there are other guilty crimes as well. I shall expand on a couple more to provide more depth.

Deforestation is yet another what in which we are destroying our Earth. By deforestation we are once again contributing to Global Warming. Another basic science fact incoming! Trees use Carbon Dioxide and give off Oxygen in it’s place thus helping to create a healthy balance of gases in our atmosphere. As more of the lungs of our planet are cut down, logged for timber or even to made way for farming, we are reducing the number of trees to perform this critical function, and so in turn increasing the number of greenhouse gases lurking in our atmosphere.

The last point that I shall mention in contributing to Global Warming is population growth! As more people are born onto this Earth then there is a greater demand for fossil fuels to be used in heat, transportation etc. And so… the level of greenhouse gases continues to escalate out of control. Not to mention, with more people this means more mouths to feed. So what needs to be done? More deforestation of course! Land is needed for farming and so it goes on.


Basically, I wanted to discuss all this and more. For example, how are you trying to help? How can we contribute to saving our planet? Is enough action being taken? What do you think about it all?

[Unknown Entity]

Basically, I wanted to discuss all this and more. For example, how are you trying to help? How can we contribute to saving our planet? Is enough action being taken? What do you think about it all?

I recycle everything that can be recycled. We now even have food waste disposal bins in our flats, so food waste goes in there, and all the other stuff (tins, cans, plasics... etc.) go in one of the other bins. Before I go to bed, I turn the mains off in my room, and unplug the plugs from the wall. There are only two sockets, and everything thing else is on extension cables, so it isn't a big deal. It's very rare we use the car - one or twice a week at most. I've recently got into the habbit of not turning lights on until it gets dark. Even then, it is kinda fun in the dark at night - I remember Lights Out London. That was awesome. ^^

The above is the least anyone could be doing at times like these. I feel helpless, because I feel it is all a can do without going too far. Really, I'd love solar panels to power the house, but then there is the question of how much money you can spend on such things.

I don't think much action is going on to prevent Global Warming getting any worse. Yeah, somethings have changed but it isn't enough. The government can chuck as many new recycleing bins as they want on to the street, but it won't make people use them. The congestion charge is more trouble than it is worth, and I don't think it makes much of a difference - everyone just takes a different route somewhere and so so.

To be honest? I care, but I refuse to believe that if I don't recycle, then my grandchildren will suffer 10x's as worse as they did yesterday. I think some of the statistics are a little over board, and aren't as bad as people make them out to be. I know they are bad before you start, but... ah, whats the use. I care. But I don't put it before other stuff going on in my life at the moment.

I'm not very good at explaining things...

[Sasquatch]

How are we contributing to the problem?

The question is, are we at all? Have humans made any impact, or would "Global Warming" happen regardless, as it has happened many times in the past, following natural climate cycles?

Fossil fuels are burnt to create the electricity we use – and by burning them we in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for example.

One main problem with this is that much of the world's electricity is produced from coal. While this is one of the most inexpensive methods of producing electricity, it's also one of the dirtiest, if not the dirtiest. While morons protest the opening of nuclear power plants and oil refineries to replace the ones that are decades old, the majority of America's (and China's) electricity comes from coal -- and not "clean coal", but regular coal. Add to this the fact that Obama flat-out stated that anybody who wants to open a "clean coal" power plant will be forced out of business, yet still refuses to subsidize or even allow nuclear plants to go up, and we're not helping ourselves.

Deforestation is yet another what in which we are destroying our Earth.

While this used to be a much more serious problem, more recently, more regulations have been put on logging companies, so that they have to replant trees to replace the wood they take. This is why you might see trees in perfect rows -- that land was logged years and years ago and reseeded.

Basically, I wanted to discuss all this and more. For example, how are you trying to help? How can we contribute to saving our planet? Is enough action being taken? What do you think about it all?

While I disagree with the concept that humans are a contributing factor to the natural change of climate that the earth experiences, you made a damn good post on it.

And while I don't give much thought to "reducing my carbon footprint", I do give thought to reducing my bills. I don't drive like a moron, so I don't use as much fuel as other people may (though I do have a larger engine). I recycle. I make sure all of my lights are turned off when I leave my place of residence, and unplug my computer when I leave for more than one night. I open windows and turn on a fan instead of using air conditioning (though now that it's getting hotter, I don't know how long that'll last).

And while I respect the idea that we should do what we can to stop polluting the planet, I don't think we should prioritize the nonproven idea of human contribution to climate change over manufacturing and progress. "Global Warming" has become synonymous with a war against Capitalism, with stricter regulations and restrictions placed on more successful industries and countries, letting others slide. Screw that.

And I wear natural clothing. The underwear I have on now is 100% natural baby seal fur. And let me tell you, it feels smoooooooooth.

The government can chuck as many new recycleing bins as they want on to the street, but it won't make people use them.

Hahahahah ... a little anecdote that you reminded me of. In many parts of Iraq, garbage collectors work for tips. This means that they spend more time collecting from the wealthier neighborhoods, and don't bother with the poorer neighborhoods. Thus, the poorer neighborhoods end up with garbage everywhere, and it goes from bad to worse. Anyway, the U.S. government paid to have hundreds and hundreds of giant metal dumpsters placed around the city. The plan was to put dumpsters out, wait a week or two, then collect the garbage from them and take it to a big landfill. That would help clean out some of the worse neighborhoods, that haven't had a garbage collection service for decades. What happened? The Iraqis cut up the dumpsters for scrap metal.

If everybody recycled, it would actually be very beneficial. Did you know that due to the overpopulation of people in California, Japan, and China, there is an overpopulation of garbage, and it is therefore sent into the ocean, halfway between California and Hawaii? It's just a giant floating waste dump out in the middle of the Pacific, three times larger than the state of Texas. Now that doesn't lead to global warming or anything, but it is disgusting.

That's partially true. First, garbage isn't "sent" into the ocean -- it ain't like China, Japan, and California decided to meet in the middle somewhere and dump freighters full of garbage into the sea. The Great Pacific Garbage patch formed in the North Pacific Gyre, which is basically a giant eddy, where crossing currents form a large (huge) area of semi-stagnant water. Garbage from all over the area, and from all over the world, is carried by sea currents to this section of ocean, where it is extremely slowly broken down by marine life, seawater, and sunlight. But no, garbage isn't "sent into the ocean" by California, Japan, or China. And while scientists and oceanographers still don't know if the GPGP is one patch or two, it prettymuch stretches from North of Hawaii to East of Japan. And while it does only mildly hamper the ability of marine vegetation to convert CO2 to O2, it definitely is disgusting.

The reason for this is because high powered executives and leaders of governments worldwide have gotten rich off of stuff like oil and other pollutants, and are fearful because they would rather kill the planet than lose their money, because all politicians, say for a good rare few, are criminal.

And let's not forget that the average American lives more than ten miles from their place of work, and it's just plain stupid to assume that somebody in Wisconsin is going to ride a bike twenty miles every day in February. Or that first-world countries like things like electricity.

I'm curious to know who's on your list of being the "rare few" politicians that aren't "criminal".

Something has to be done, or else we could all face one of three options. One, the melting of the northern ice cap could send too much fresh water into the gulf stream, causing massive storms that force the world into a new ice age (see The Day After Tomorrow.)

Yes, let's use a fiction movie in an attempt to support logical arguments. You know what, if aliens ever come to Earth, let's make sure we don't send a helicopter to greet them, or else they'll destroy it and start a global war against all mankind (see Independence Day).

Two, much of the planet could flood.

Ice takes up more space than water. While water levels would raise ever-so-slightly if the ice caps melted, it wouldn't be enough to flood "much of the planet", or even a significant amount.

Three, water could dry up, and instead of countries fighting over land or oil, they would fight over water...

... So water, which covers 2/3 of the planet, would just disappear? And countries would fight wars over water, despite the fact that we can purify and desalinize seawater?

Which would actually be pretty cool, because then they would be fighting for something that they actually need, unlike the two, three, four, or five wars that are going on now.

Because nobody needs those little things like freedom or secuity.

It took us a massive electricity bill to change our ways sadly but now we turn everything off at the power point and use candles as much as possible instead of lights and other than that yeah we just turn everything off when not in use.

... You do know that a candle burning produces even more Carbon dioxide than is produced by a coal plant to generate the electricy needed to power a flourescent light bulb, right?

[Govinda]

So if it's not sent into the ocean, then the only other option is that it really isn't in the ocean. Let me explain. Such cities as LA, there is bound to be a hell of a lot of trash lying about out on the streets. When rain or other circumstances arrive, the trash gets washed down drainage pipes, which lead into sewers, which leads into the ocean, hence sending the trash via sewer lines, into the ocean. So you're right, people don't purposefully send it into the ocean, but the amount of people in those parts of the world, combined with the amount of trash they produce, finds it's way into sewers and other gateways to the ocean, and hence, accidentally sending trash into the ocean.


Lance Armstrong would have no problem doing that. Are you going to call him stupid? No, I think not, because if you do, that means that you're bias towards testicular/brain cancer survivors.


Of course they do. It makes them rich.


I'm not sure. That's why I called them a rare few; because I couldn't think of any. There's bound to be at least a few who aren't criminal.


What, you think no research went in to the writing of the movie? I don't really care if it's science fiction or not. If it makes sense, then it makes sense. It doesn't matter where it came from.


When I was referring to "much of the earth," I was referring to all areas below sea level. It's not "most of the earth," but it's still a lot of land.


Fresh water would, and areas away from seas or lacking the technology to purify seawater would be at a crisis. Use your imagination, tough guy.


There hasn't been a war fought for freedom or security since the last one ended in 1945. I mean, sure, the South Koreans fought against communism and the North Koreans, but during that same war, when America and the Soviet Union became involved, they weren't fighting to protect either side, they were fighting a proxy war of their own. And all of the middle east invasions have started off with the premise of providing freedom and security, such as going to war to help defend Saudi Arabia, or to fight terrorism, but in the middle east, it always comes down to one thing; oil.


In the past 100 years, the average global temperature has increased 0.6 degree Celsius, which is an extraordinary increase, seeing as though every century before that, although the global temperature has increased, it has never increased to that amount. This increase coincidentally came as industrialization around the world continued, expanded, and grew.

Please don't mention The Day After Tomorrow. It is utter, utter fiction, and a rubbish movie at that. They are firmly on my list of American Filmmakers Who Liked the Idea of Scotland But Couldn't Be Bothered Looking It Up on Wiki. They have a little Scottish weather station...in which they position three Englishmen. I liked my country being the centre for European apoclaypse, though.

Desalinisation is a long and very expensive process. Countries like Australia would need to start building desalinisers now, and build a lot of them.

Wars fought over scarce resources are worse than wars fought for freedom (of which there have been plenty since 1945. For starters: NATO in Afghanistan and Bosnia). In wars like that, peaceful resolution could be an option. In scarce resource is it not. You die if you don't get it, they die if they don't get it. It drives people to do horrible things.

Also, the sea is not like a bath. If you put water into it, the whole level won't rise; it'll do more rising in specific places. Bangladesh, Miami, London, The Netherlands are in the target zones though, because they have always been susceptible. I've been to Holland, and the dykes are creepy - you can see that the water is higher up than you are standing. The thing about this flooding is that it will be a very slow process. Like the Thames Barrier - today it is almost constantly raised to hold back higher seawater and keep it from the centre of London. It never used to be that way. It's taken years. London should be strengthening its defences (it's been more than 30 years since Joe Strummer warned them), as should other target areas.

Where I live is headed for ice age anyway, so there's not much we can do about that. The Gulf Stream actually stopped for a little while last year. Very suppressed news story at the time over here. At least you can melt snow to get water.

[Clint]

Okay, so I tried this once, but for some strange reason, people love to attempt to argue with people who don't want to be argued with. So I'm trying this again.

As I stated in response to Unknown Entity, if everybody recycled, it would actually be very beneficial, concerning that much of the pollution in Pacific cities which finds its way into waterways, ends up way out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii. Just a giant, disgusting, floating mess of garbage and trash three times bigger than the state of Texas. Although it doesn't contribute to global warming, it sure as hell is disgraceful, and will literally take hundreds of years to decompose.

How are you trying to help?
I recycle, but that's practically the only thing that I can do as an individual. Every other decision about the environment has to come from somewhere high in government, of course, everybody already knows that the government isn't going to do anything. I'm thinking about moving to an unindustrialized, uninhabited area of the world, but then I wouldn't be able to post on this forum because I wouldn't have access to neither a computer nor the internet, so I don't know about that.

How can we contribute to saving our planet?
We need to take better care of the planet, by eliminating things that send toxins into the air and water. The only problems that humans have made for themselves and every other species on the planet are the high levels of pollution during the industrial revolution to the present day. Also, recycling would be good, especially of paper products, so that humans don't have to resort to any more mass deforestation.

Is enough action being taken?
There's a lot of talk being done on the matter of cleaning up the environment, but one has to keep in mind that most of the politicians got rich of of things like oil and coal, so by finding cleaner means to produce power by, they would lose money, and as everybody knows, money is the only thing a politician care about. They don't care if millions get sick and die from drinking their toxic water or by breathing their toxic air, because even without us, our money will still be in circulation.

[Zardoch]

Basically, I wanted to discuss all this and more. For example, how are you trying to help?

I'm not. Since the world isn't in any kind of peril, except the political war kind, I'm pretty sure it can take care of itself.

How can we contribute to saving our planet?

Who says our planet needs saving? Al Gore? Captain Planet? Every movie that gobbles up the global warming trend?

Anyway, I think we, as humans, should take into consideration what we do to the environment, but in the end it should be something that benefits the planet AND our kind because for the most part, environmentalist would rather kill a bunch of people to save the earth (e.g. 'population control') than truly help. I mean we've actually had plenty of times in our history where we would have been able to start things like nuclear power planets or clean coal production (which could produce our own oil through its conversion too!), but for some reason politicians (who tote the environmentalist party lines) decided to ban places we could mine coal and ****-block any methods of actually making American life easier through alternative energies.

If there is anything we should contribute to the world, we should kick out almost every politician, reelect people who actually share our common sense, and then we can get the ball rolling because the people in power now (who are mostly democrats) do not have our interest at heart, especially for the planet despite what they say.

Is enough action being taken?

Too much action is being taken and most of it is BS. I'm glad we're finding new ways to do similar things that truly help (e.g. turning trash into soil), but a lot of the studies and such are misdirected. Carbon emissions are not the reason the earth has gotten warmer over the years, and yet so many people base their ideas off of that (link). Again, for the right kind of innovative direction to take place, we need the politicians to get out of the way. Wind turbines and solar panels won't do jack shit except cost more money we don't have.

What do you think about it all?

There is no dispute that global warming is real, though I don't think in these modern times it's as extensive or harming as some people say. Man-made global warming on the other hand, is not real. It never was. It was just a way for Al Gore to get rich while instilling fear into everybody. What political machine use to do that? Oh yeah, the catholic church (think crusades).

Furthermore, scientist are actually realizing how ridiculous it has become with evidence that's starting to make Gore sweat. What kind of evidence?

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise -- Davis et al. 308 (5730): 1898 -- Science

That's an article from 2005 showing an increase in ice in Antarctica, which means it's slowing down sea levels from rising. The same thing was found in Greenland. Take note that both places GAINED ice, meaning that the kind of global warming propagandist are talking about is also a lie. Also last year, Baghdad had its first snow in a hundred years! (link)

Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland -- Johannessen et al., 10.1126/science.1115356 -- Science

Even more recent studies shows that there has practically been no change in sea level at all.

(NOTE: Just so you also understand, melting ice caps do next to nothing to the sea levels either. Think of it like putting ice in a cup of water. If you leave it for a couple hours at room temperature, the added melted water from the ice will be insignificant. So what makes the water rise in the cup when you put ice cubes in it? The question answers itself--the solid masses of ice. Yet ironically, more ice added to glaciers or land masses of ice slows the rise of sea levels because it means there's more water being frozen than released. Antarctica itself has grown in size recently.)

If you want an even greater reminder at how ridiculous this all is, guess what Al Gore did a couple weeks ago that truly shows how much a lying coward he is? In an debate, Gore practically banned his opponent, Christopher Monckton, from debating himself and guess who he put in Monckton's place? NEWT FREAKIN' GINGRINCH! Newt is a supporter of Gore's lies and only further shows how silly this is becoming.

So anyway, while I am all for making human life environmentally cleaner and better for everyone, we need to make it our priority to think clearly and calmly before jumping on these bandwagons.

P.S. - Here's something from the same Christopher Monckton to read.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

[Alpha]

There are many, many things wrong with your initial statement. I'm currently taking a climate change course at University, and, while I'm planning to drop geology, I've still learnt a thing or two about climate change, geologically, historically and recent, natural and anthropogenic. I don't claim to be an expert, but in the interests of accuracy, here I go.

Global warming is by now an issue we’re all very much aware of.

OK, so I'm going to assume you are referring to anthropogenic (human-exacerbated) climate change, as opposed to natural climate change, except where it's made clear by what I say.

A brief explanation as to what ‘Global Warming’ is…. It’s actually quite self explanatory.

It is not. "Global" is misleading, as it is having, and is likely to have different effects on different parts of the Earth, because, shock horror, they are different. "Warming" is also misleading, because it is important to state that (I assume) you are talking about the Earth's surface, as opposed to the troposphere and stratosphere, or the deep ocean. Also, some parts of the Earth could become colder through various feedback loops as a result of anthropogenic climate change.

When the Earth suffers from an increase in temperature – this is known as Global Warming.

I refer to this as 'daytime'. Silliness aside, the warming and cooling of the planet (from interglacial conditions to glacial conditions, and within these, stadials (small cold periods) and interstadials (small warm periods)) is just what the planet has done best over it's 4.56Ga (billion year) history

It occurs when the ‘Greenhouse Gases’ (Such as Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane etc.) trap heat and light from our Sun in the Earth’s atmosphere, thus meaning an imminent increase of the Earths temperature.

Half right. Greenhouse gases do not "trap light", but they do trap heat (i.e. long wave infrared radiation). However, yes, an increase in these gases does have a general warming effect, but the relationship is significantly more complicated than that.

This change may sound simple, but it certainly has a dramatic effect on many different areas. It can and does pose to be a danger to mankind, animals and nature. The consequences could be dire if no action is maintained to stop, or reduce the damage we have caused.

But climate change is a natural process that fauna and fauna have adapted to ever since the 'Cambrian Explosion', 542 MYA (million years ago), where the first shelly creatures are recorded in the fossil index. Hominids of some kind have been around for 4Ma (million years), and in that time there has been marked climatic change. I actually cannot stress this enough: WE ARE CURRENTLY IN AN ICE AGE (The so-called 'Great Ice Age', though it's mediocre as far as ice ages go). In fact, this is the FIRST time, that we know of, where both the North and South Poles have been covered in ice at the same time. Consequences, as you define them, relate to humans, who, for the most part, have had a knack of building by the sea, because we assume it is stable. Mass extinction events themselves could be argued to be entirely 'natural', for example, 251 MYA, between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, where 96% of Earth's creatures were made extinct, paving the way for dinosaurs, and eventually mammals, to take over the world.

As for an actual statistic, global surface temperature has risen 0.74 ± 0.18 °C during the last century.

I stress that this is an average, and is certainly not uniform.

Next I’d just like to expand upon the Greenhouse Effect, and what is actually is. The Greenhouse Effect actually refers to the ‘chance’ in the steady state temperature of a planet (in our case Earth ^~) or even a moon, by the presence of an atmosphere which contains gas which absorbs and gives off infrared radiation. As I mentioned earlier, Greenhouse Gases include water vapour (oops I left that one out!), Carbon Dioxide, Methane etc. These gases tend to warm the atmosphere by proficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation released by the Earth’s surface – by the atmosphere itself AND by clouds!

Yes, a reasonable definition of the Greenhouse Effect, and I won't endeavour to expand on it too much. Water vapour is actually one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but compared to oceanic, glacial and groundwater water reservoirs, it (thankfully) doesn't comprise a large portion of the atmosphere. By "clouds" you mean water vapour, and more specifically, the infrared energy released as it goes through a latent heat transformation from water to gas. This, along with simple reflectivity (albedo), is how the Earth balances outgoing long-wave radiation with incoming short-wave (heat) radiation, keeping it in steady state equilibrium.

Most importantly and it has to be said, life on this plant actually depends on energy from the Sun. That’s basic science and we all know it. Approximately 30% of the light given off by the sun that is sent to Earth is deflected by the Outer Atmosphere and scattered back into the large and looming area we call Space. The light that manages to get through and reach the Earth’s surfaces is reflected back up as a type of slow-moving energy known as infrared radiation.
As it rises, the greenhouse gases perform and absorb the infrared radiation (look up to recap on the gases if you forgot them :3). This slows it’s escape from the atmosphere.

8/10, but I won't go into detail, except to say that not all life depends on the sun. What of deep-sea creatures who live in entirely self-contained ecosystems around geothermal vents. They do not rely on the sun for life, probably the only living things that don't.

Greenhouse Gases infact regulate our climate conditions – by trapping heat and holding it in. Think of a nice fleece blanket for example, wrapped around the Earth.

Terribly simple analogy, one which one of my lecturers ridiculed in the first five minutes of a one-trimester course, but it does help laymen understand this important process somewhat, so I'll ignore.

This marvel is what in fact the scientists of our world call “The Greenhouse Effect.” If we were to be without this mechanism it is said that the average temperature on our planet would actually cooler by about 30 degrees Celcius! Current ecosystems would not be here if that were to be the case. So in fact – we can’t live without it either.

Not having the greenhouse mechanism would imply that we have no atmospheric gases, which would mean we would be blasted by gamma rays from the sun, and NO LIFE could POSSIBLY exist what with the spontaneous mutations and combustions and whatnot.

Ever heard of too much of a good thing? Well that’s the case we have here… Humans have accelerated the volume of these gases. Now we have too many of these gases which is necessary – and as a result temperatures are rising!

These gases have increased and decreased of their own accord many, many times before. The evolution of photosynthetic plants is what caused greenhouse gas concentrations to decrease. Who defines a necessary level of greenhouse gases? Things probably died as the climate got warmer before the Industrial Revolution (where large-scale anthropogenic climate change began), so to these organisms a "necessary level" would be pre-1800s concentrations, and less.

How are we contributing to the problem? Many things cause Global Warming. First off I will use an example on which we are all guilty of… Having. Using. And abusing. In a word… Electricity. One of the main contributors is Electrical Pollution. Electricity is able to cause pollution in a multitude of ways – some worse than others. One of the more common examples of this is in the case of ‘Fossil Fuels’. Fossil fuels are burnt to create the electricity we use – and by burning them we in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for example. Many other pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere when we burn these… And after time they just accumulate. Like they have now.

Wow. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Firstly, electricity is not solely made by the burning of fossil fuels. In my homeland, Aotearoa/New Zealand, I am proud to say that 85% of our electricity is made from renewable energy sources, especially hydroelectricity, but also increasingly wind and geothermal sources (and a planned wave-generator in Cook Straight, and if you know much about the mid-latitude westerly winds, you would know that there is some huge seas in the Southern Hemisphere oceans). I am not proud to say that we burn all of the gas that we can extract, and that we export a considerable amount of oil. We do have coal-fire electricity generators, but we export most of the minuscule amount of coal we produce. So, yes you're right, but you're inaccurate at the same time.

Some other simple examples of using energy and polluting the air that we breath are as follows:
- Turning on a light. (And leaving it on for that matter… like when you exit the room.)
- Watching the TV. (How many of us are guilty of leaving it on when we leave the room as well? Just like a light switch.)
- Listening to the stero.
- Playing a video game <_<

Not so here in NZ. My FF-playing has a significantly lower carbon footprint than you North Americans

Deforestation is yet another what in which we are destroying our Earth. By deforestation we are once again contributing to Global Warming. Another basic science fact incoming! Trees use Carbon Dioxide and give off Oxygen in it’s place thus helping to create a healthy balance of gases in our atmosphere. As more of the lungs of our planet are cut down, logged for timber or even to made way for farming, we are reducing the number of trees to perform this critical function, and so in turn increasing the number of greenhouse gases lurking in our atmosphere.

Yes, trees are a form of "carbon sink", but most Western countries have cut down their trees early in their industrialisation, for example the UK, which I'm sure you imagine as an island of field after field of farmland... well, before this, it was forested (when not covered in ice throughout the geological history). Indonesia has recently been found to be the fastest deforesting nation on Earth, followed by Brazil, and then much of Southeast Asia and South America. What are "we" (Western nations), to do about this? They're entitled to, and more so because "we" already have...

The last point that I shall mention in contributing to Global Warming is population growth! As more people are born onto this Earth then there is a greater demand for fossil fuels to be used in heat, transportation etc. And so… the level of greenhouse gases continues to escalate out of control. Not to mention, with more people this means more mouths to feed. So what needs to be done? More deforestation of course! Land is needed for farming and so it goes on.

Actually, land intensification is an option we can use to produce more agricultural output on the same amount of land, but after the ongoing human catastrophe that is the "Green Revolution" (Wiki for an explanation), it probably isn't a good response.

Fossil fuels are not necessary for things such as electricity and transportation. For example, imagine an electric car in a country with 100% renewable energy sources. It could be argued that population growth will more quickly deplete the finite supplies of the planet, creating a rush to adopt alternatives as quickl as possible.



One big gaping hole in your analysis is the lack of mention for Milankovitch Cycles (Wiki it, or see Caroline Fry, "The Impact of Climate Change", 2008, for a simple explanation in the first few pages). What these are, are changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation (from 21.5-25 degrees), changes in the precision of it's axis (the Earth 'wobbles'), and changes in its eccentricity (from an elliptical orbit, to a less-eliptical orbit). These occur in 24, 45 and 100 thousand year cycles, and cause small changes in the amount of solar radiation that the Earth receives, and are largely responsible for the past glacial and interglacial conditions that the earth has endured. In saying this, anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases is responsible for projected (not entirely the current warming, that's natural) warming.

Further research, or, if someone decides to pick a fight, I will bring these up:

The Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (and it's probable collapse, plunging Europe into an ice age, possibly).

Planetary albedo.

Atmosphere-ocean interface.

And a lot more.

Climate change is happening. But I also believe in informed debate, so, here you are, you have become informed, my children.

(Kudos for creating this thread, if you did, I didn't check)



P.S.

What do you think about it all?

There is no dispute that global warming is real, though I don't think in these modern times it's as extensive or harming as some people say. Man-made global warming on the other hand, is not real. It never was. It was just a way for Al Gore to get rich while instilling fear into everybody. What political machine use to do that? Oh yeah, the catholic church (think crusades).

Anthropogenic climate change IS REAL. Fact: increased concentrations of greenhouse gases cause the Earth to INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. Fact: humans have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. While there is a natural element to it, there is NO DENYING, WHATSOEVER, that humans are somewhat causing "climate change" in this enhanced sense.

[IceColdPillow]

Global warming in my opinion is something that naturally happens,he Earth has cycles, there is supposedly 10,000- 30,000 years [thats probably wrong someone can fact check haha] of general warmth before another major freeze, is a theory. The Eath will naturally warm and cool based on its orbit around the sun and angle etc.... Human interaction speedsthis up by pumping toxic fumes such as CO2 into our atmosphere,speeding up greeen house effects, but this may have been well over emphasized in the publics eye.

While this is a problem obviously, I believe that this issue was completely shoved in everyones face, and i'm sure facts have been over exagerrated to emphasize some peoples idea. The thing that gets me is people like Al Gore, who blame everyone else, blah blah blah mentallity that scares people into changing their lifestyles, it causes politicians to change their policies and in turn affects large industries such as the coal and natural gas industry.

Now what a potential problem that can arise here in the near future, coal and other large natural gas corps are the leaders in the worlds energy supply basically. they supply MILLIONS of jobs, and in general keep pricing low. Now, the inevitable near future is the taxation of CO2 emissions caused by this industry, even President Obama said that he would bankrupt the coal industry [say what you will I heard him say it, not out of context haha]. This in turn, job loss across the world, monopolization of safer energy sources and more spending to find alternative sources [ for every green job made, over two in the nat. gas industry is lost.].

Now I'm not saying "going green" is bad, but before we all act fast with changing, lets think of the consequences. Sorry for rambling haha

[IceColdPillow]

Oh and I do help the enviroment out btw, I recycle etc.. and I've planted a bunch of trees to for an organization at my school. But i'm no crazy enviromentalist freak haha i still enjoy big trucks and energy eating video games

[Furore]

I personally do not give a shit about global warming.
Even if it is happening, how many of the effects will directly effect us too negatively before we die of whatever else regardless?

Call me selfish but I really see it as being someone else's problem and am only too happy to let the enviromentalist nuts who know what they're doing make a solution for those who might suffer in the future. And I have also heard that global warming is a natural occurence and as bad as humans effect the environment, there's a good chance we're not doing jack in terms of global warming. Forgive me if I'm wrong, this has never been something I've cared about overly so.

Also, when did we all stop giving a shit about that poor old Ozone layer I used to see in television segments around a decade or so ago? It seems like the media needs a new 'major environmental disaster' every few years/decades and even if some involve real damage, I'm yet to see us all dying quickly in some sort of catestrophic way. It's almost a letdown.

[Walter Sobchak]

Also, when did we all stop giving a shit about that poor old Ozone layer I used to see in television segments around a decade or so ago? It seems like the media needs a new 'major environmental disaster' every few years/decades and even if some involve real damage, I'm yet to see us all dying quickly in some sort of catestrophic way. It's almost a letdown.

We stopped "giving a shit" when widespread bans on CFC's were passed throughout the past three decades, culminating with a scientific report in 2003 that declared that the hole was growing at a slower pace due to these bans. The hole will continue to increase because some developing countries have yet to ban them, and CFC's can stay in the environment for 100 years, but on the whole the crisis was averted.

It should be appreciated, however, that for all the talk of nuclear war and doomsday scenarios, we are going to kill ourselves because of excessivenss. It is as if the entirety of the planet was a great Empire that became lazy and allowed the Huns to invade. We were strong and intelligent enough to stop it, but it never came to pass.

We can discuss ways to combat climate change, but it is all a Band-Aid at this point. Realistically, and no one wants to say this publicly, we need to dramatically reduce (execute, euthanize, abort) the human population in order to have a chance for a long-term solution. The planet cannot sustain seven billion people, and with estimates that the planet could reach nine billion by 2050, no amount of alteration of our living environment, minus becoming feral, is going to help.

[Alpha]

Radical solution Nixon... sounds like it would work, but you are talking about genocide on the scale of billions of people.

However, I just thought about it again, and if it comes down to more of us dying without the euthanasia/execution option, then maybe we should just go feral.

I personally do not give a shit about global warming.
Even if it is happening, how many of the effects will directly effect us too negatively before we die of whatever else regardless?

Call me selfish but I really see it as being someone else's problem and am only too happy to let the enviromentalist nuts who know what they're doing make a solution for those who might suffer in the future. And I have also heard that global warming is a natural occurence and as bad as humans effect the environment, there's a good chance we're not doing jack in terms of global warming. Forgive me if I'm wrong, this has never been something I've cared about overly so.

Human-induced or not, global warming is happening. Those who say it is not are either completely ignorant, have an agenda, or are just scared to admit it. What you're saying is, 'because I'm not going to be affected by this, I'll leave it for my children to sort out', even when it will be harder to fix the longer we wait. That. Is. So. Selfish.

For those who say global warming is not human-induced: so what? Maybe you should start coming up with a human solution for the problem anyway? Just because, as you say, 'we didn't cause it', doesn't mean it won't affect us. Rising sea levels alone are going to displace millions of people, and they're going to need somewhere to go, and they will probably end up on the doorsteps of the rich countries. If you wanna take the ultra-nationalist solution and just exterminate them, be my guest.

Solutions are needed, not just for preventing climate change, but the other associated social, economic, and political ramifications. And it does not matter about what you think of climate change.

[Furore]

Human-induced or not, global warming is happening. Those who say it is not are either completely ignorant, have an agenda, or are just scared to admit it. What you're saying is, 'because I'm not going to be affected by this, I'll leave it for my children to sort out', even when it will be harder to fix the longer we wait. That. Is. So. Selfish.

Yeah, I'm not disputing global warming is happening, I'm just saying it's a natural occurence. I saw some labcoats on TV on one of the two channels not involved in mass-scale fearmongering and they were suggesting it's just a part of the Earth's natural cycle. It heats, cools, heats, cools etc.

I wasn't paying too much attention, but they were showing things that supported their theory such as variances in layers of the Earth that were explainable by this and that...

And I'm yet to see any decent evidence of any alternative scenario. Where's the conclusive evidence that we're adding to the natural phenomena?

And yeah, my attitude is selfish. I admitted that. I'm just honest enough to say I couldn't give two shits about something that likely won't effect me. I wouldn't be surprised if half of those who are bitching about it really don't care neither. My reasoning is this. Why give a shit when there are more immediate concerns such as the quality and quantity of available water (I live in Australia where droughts aren't uncommon) and things like the economy being ****ed. And why go on about it when you're not in a likely position to be able to change anything? For me it'd be like crying over spilt milk. And someone else's spilt milk at that.. lol

For those who say global warming is not human-induced: so what? Maybe you should start coming up with a human solution for the problem anyway? Just because, as you say, 'we didn't cause it', doesn't mean it won't affect us. Rising sea levels alone are going to displace millions of people, and they're going to need somewhere to go, and they will probably end up on the doorsteps of the rich countries. If you wanna take the ultra-nationalist solution and just exterminate them, be my guest.

Show me a solution then, Einstein.

Solutions are needed, not just for preventing climate change, but the other associated social, economic, and political ramifications. And it does not matter about what you think of climate change.

It doesn't matter what you think of climate change neither from what I can tell.

[RagnaToad]

Where's the conclusive evidence that we're adding to the natural phenomena?

Where's the concluding evidence that we're not?

You are ignorant in the way that you see "global warming" as a phenomenon limited to actual global "warming". If only the higher temperatures were the only problem...

And don't you think that the scientists who are able to commit years of research to the effects of human behaviour on the earth knów about the natural warming-up process? If you had done your research, you would know that what we are facing now is way out of proportions speedwise, temperaturewise and in terms of consequences compared to the regular warming up and cooling down of our planet.

And once again, global "warming" is a term used to indicate the bad changes the earth is going through, not that summers are getting hotter. For now, I'll leave it at that.

And what am I doing for the benefit of this poor planet?
-I don't use shampoo for my body, only for my hair.
-I take showers, not baths.
-I press the toilet flush "button" very carefully so that I don't get an unstoppable 10 second flood of water going to waste.
-I don't use a car, but always take the bus/train if I go somewhere "far".
-I try to eat less food that produces a lot of waste in comparison to the actual weight of what is consumed.
-I never use deodorants. Only when I am socially "obliged" to. (e.g. meeting with someone when you haven't had the time to take a shower and are really smelling bad.) But then again, I don't get smelly that fast.
-I try to eat less cow meat.
-I don't leave the tap running. Although I actually do sometimes, 'cause I'm pretty dreamy in general.
-I don't think recycling counts these days. Every sane person is recycling...

I do drink a lot of beer, which apparently uses up a considerable amount of water during production, but the same can be said for other drinks. And I only drink water and beer.

P.S. Silver, I respect your "opinion", but I just can't help but feel disgusted by your first post in this thread.

[Furore]

Where's the concluding evidence that we're not?

None that I have seen. Though I've seen more to suggest we're having little impact than I have to suggest we're having a huge effect. Either way, if people are just clutching straws here, why worry?

I notice that every time I see global warming in the mainstream media, they do not explain what it actually is AND the most evidence I've seen was a crappy carbon emissions diagram showing that we create more carbon emissions than we did 50 years ago or whatever. Big whoop.

You are ignorant in the way that you see "global warming" as a phenomenon limited to actual global "warming". If only the higher temperatures were the only problem...

Inform me then. Why should I give a damn? I've only heard decent sounding evidence from the camp saying that global warming is quite overhyped. Yeah, we destroy the environment and do other things that'll likely one day doom the human race, but as it stands, global warming isn't gonna likely kill me.

And don't you think that the scientists who are able to commit years of research to the effects of human behaviour on the earth knów about the natural warming-up process? If you had done your research, you would know that what we are facing now is way out of proportions speedwise, temperaturewise and in terms of consequences compared to the regular warming up and cooling down of our planet.

I think some of them are trying to stir up shit for whatever reasons they might have. Hell, when in the public view I'm guessing those scientists get a decent amount of funding they mightn't have gotten if no-one cared. And yeah, I have heard it's unusual times. Just like the other one mentioned it's unusual for both ice caps to be frozen at the one time. But if anything that would suggest to me that things are colder. Hooray for ice and shit? No research I can dig up hasn't been disputed by some other geniuses.

And once again, global "warming" is a term used to indicate the bad changes the earth is going through, not that summers are getting hotter. For now, I'll leave it at that.

Summers are getting hotter? Wow, this year's summer actually seemed fairly cool. I remember a couple years back it felt like summer for three seasons of the year.

And what am I doing for the benefit of this poor planet?
-I don't use shampoo for my body, only for my hair.
-I take showers, not baths.
-I press the toilet flush "button" very carefully so that I don't get an unstoppable 10 second flood of water going to waste.
-I don't use a car, but always take the bus/train if I go somewhere "far".
-I try to eat less food that produces a lot of waste in comparison to the actual weight of what is consumed.
-I never use deodorants. Only when I am socially "obliged" to. (e.g. meeting with someone when you haven't had the time to take a shower and are really smelling bad.) But then again, I don't get smelly that fast.
-I try to eat less cow meat.
-I don't leave the tap running. Although I actually do sometimes, 'cause I'm pretty dreamy in general.
-I don't think recycling counts these days. Every sane person is recycling...

For every person like you there is one like me who almost goes out of their way to not do any of that stuff out of either not caring or downright spite. Seen that episode of South Park with the 'Smug'?
Are showers still better when they're long and you have them several times a day? If not, too bad, I like them.

I do drink a lot of beer, which apparently uses up a considerable amount of water during production, but the same can be said for other drinks. And I only drink water and beer.

I bet I drink more beer. Yay for using up considerable amounts of water!

P.S. Silver, I respect your "opinion", but I just can't help but feel disgusted by your first post in this thread.

Yeah well I get sick of people who get satisfaction from doing things that help the environment at the expense of their own preferred experience. Just something about them that bugs the shit out of me. Especially when they don't shut the **** up about it which is something I have to deal with in real life all too frequently, mainly due to the government giving out rebates for solar heating and other crap that doesn't achieve as good an end result in terms of user experience.

Global warming is both human and natural. Yes, the Earth has periodically warmed and cooled, and, according to my Geology lecturer, we are still in an ice age. As I said earlier; the current geologic period we are in is the ONLY time we know of that both poles have been covered in ice simultaneously.

And this makes global warming bad, how?

Do you deny that humans have added ridiculous amounts of carbon to the atmosphere? The total anthropogenic burden on the atmosphere is ~7.5-8.5 gigatonnes of carbon, per year, which is increasing due to the rapid industrialisation of many countries, namely India and China. However, the total level of atmospheric carbon is only increasing at 3 gigatonnes per year. The missing carbon is being dissolved in the ocean and used by plankton to build shells, and it is also used in marine and terrestrial photosynthesis. The problem is this: the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean are making it more acidic, leading to a decrease inthe number of animals that can actively remove carbon. Also, as deforestation continues (global average = 0.18%, and as high as 1.3% in Indonesia [per year]), there are less plants to remove carbon from the air.

Nope. But Solar Variation has recently been considered being a possibly bigger factor in the equation. And I noticed spikes in a graph of the surface temperature of the Earth in Medieval times. Did Knights spray deodorant before battle and use giant hot tubs afterwards? I also noticed a spike around about 1940 not so much smaller than that seen around 2004.

I'm thinking perhaps the effects of carbon emissions are being played up. Yeah, they're constantly going up (yet another graph I was looking at) but the surface temperatures of the Earth follow a very different path. That to me would indicate that even if carbon emissions are a massive factor, they still aren't warming the Earth as much as people might be led to believe and I still don't think I'll see any major changes during my lifetime.

I have two ideas currently:

1) Launching dust particles into the air in order to seed clouds and increses the albedo (reflectivity) of Earth in order to cool the planet.

I believe, based on what I've read on this subject (James Lovelock's 2007 "The Revenge of Gaia" is recommended), that it is really too late to simply decreases our emissions by a weak 20% on 2000 levels. For one, 2000 levels are far too high, and 20% is far too low.

Start kicking up dust then.
I still don't think anyone without the power to organise something big can really do shit for the environment. Or maybe you are in a position of power? I certainly ain't.

2) Getting asses like you to stop being so selfish! Yeah I just said that reducing emissions by 20% probably isn't going to do much, but it's a start! It's better than doing nothing.

You guys know what actually would help the Earth get healthier? All of us dying. That would totally help the environment. It'd just mean we'd all be dead. Even things some don't think about as much like our agricultural practices screw with plants and animals either changing their behaviour OR changing them in a much more real sense with genetic alterations. It's become human nature to **** with things we probably shouldn't have and as things weren't ****ed by me I don't feel a moral need to un**** things.

What? Does this even make sense?

Yeah it does. You mentioned it doesn't matter what I think of climate change. It's very valid as far as I can see to say it doesn't matter what you think of climate change neither.

Prove me wrong if you want to. Change the world.

[Alpha]

Yeah, I'm not disputing global warming is happening, I'm just saying it's a natural occurence. I saw some labcoats on TV on one of the two channels not involved in mass-scale fearmongering and they were suggesting it's just a part of the Earth's natural cycle. It heats, cools, heats, cools etc.

I wasn't paying too much attention, but they were showing things that supported their theory such as variances in layers of the Earth that were explainable by this and that...

Global warming is both human and natural. Yes, the Earth has periodically warmed and cooled, and, according to my Geology lecturer, we are still in an ice age. As I said earlier; the current geologic period we are in is the ONLY time we know of that both poles have been covered in ice simultaneously.

And I'm yet to see any decent evidence of any alternative scenario. Where's the conclusive evidence that we're adding to the natural phenomena?

Do you deny that humans have added ridiculous amounts of carbon to the atmosphere? The total anthropogenic burden on the atmosphere is ~7.5-8.5 gigatonnes of carbon, per year, which is increasing due to the rapid industrialisation of many countries, namely India and China. However, the total level of atmospheric carbon is only increasing at 3 gigatonnes per year. The missing carbon is being dissolved in the ocean and used by plankton to build shells, and it is also used in marine and terrestrial photosynthesis. The problem is this: the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean are making it more acidic, leading to a decrease inthe number of animals that can actively remove carbon. Also, as deforestation continues (global average = 0.18%, and as high as 1.3% in Indonesia [per year]), there are less plants to remove carbon from the air.

And yeah, my attitude is selfish. I admitted that. I'm just honest enough to say I couldn't give two shits about something that likely won't effect me. I wouldn't be surprised if half of those who are bitching about it really don't care neither. My reasoning is this. Why give a shit when there are more immediate concerns such as the quality and quantity of available water (I live in Australia where droughts aren't uncommon) and things like the economy being ****ed. And why go on about it when you're not in a likely position to be able to change anything? For me it'd be like crying over spilt milk. And someone else's spilt milk at that.. lol

The economy is important, no doubt, and so is water concerns. But do you realise that global warming will make your "immediate concerns" even worse? There will be less arable land and more people. This means water and food will become more scarce. The economy will suffer in many countries which are primary commodity dependent, such as Australia and New Zealand (where I live... btw Aussie sucks). Can you not see this? These will happen regardless of how much humans have done to alter the climate!

Show me a solution then, Einstein.

I have two ideas currently:

1) Launching dust particles into the air in order to seed clouds and increses the albedo (reflectivity) of Earth in order to cool the planet.

I believe, based on what I've read on this subject (James Lovelock's 2007 "The Revenge of Gaia" is recommended), that it is really too late to simply decreases our emissions by a weak 20% on 2000 levels. For one, 2000 levels are far too high, and 20% is far too low.

2) Getting asses like you to stop being so selfish! Yeah I just said that reducing emissions by 20% probably isn't going to do much, but it's a start! It's better than doing nothing.

It doesn't matter what you think of climate change neither from what I can tell.

What? Does this even make sense?

[RagnaToad]

Do I strike you as a person being smug about his habits?

If anyone's being smug, it's you. The way you show off with your egoism is, quite frankly, plain arrogance. You're a bastard when it comes to caring about the future, ok. But don't be proud of it.

I guess it's a personal thing.

And I don't have the financials nor have I the opportunity to spend $400 a week on booze. But if you're counting in the occasional bourbon and wine, I get how you get to that number.

And to stay off-topic: Bourbon is really good.

[Furore]

Do I strike you as a person being smug about his habits?

If anyone's being smug, it's you. The way you show off with your egoism is, quite frankly, plain arrogance. You're a bastard when it comes to caring about the future, ok. But don't be proud of it.

What can I say, I'm an arrogant person! But then so are a fair few people, they just don't often admit it. I'm not proud of how I don't give a shit about the environment, I'm proud about why I don't give a shit. I really thought that part through.

And I don't have the financials nor have I the opportunity to spend $400 a week on booze. But if you're counting in the occasional bourbon and wine, I get how you get to that number.

And to stay off-topic: Bourbon is really good.

Damn straight.

But I'm still curious as to why exactly you and any others want the environment saved for the future so much. I can't fathom why unless you're of a people that has an extraordinary longevity, you care about the welfare of your future descendants or something else that doesn't apply to yours truly.

I look at it this way. We die from global warming, overpopulation, the ring of fire going KABOOM or whatever else. Either way humaity goes the drain eventually. I'd rather enjoy my life than needlessly live with a poorer quality of life.

[RagnaToad]

Yeah, there's your typical human being for you.

Would it bother you if Hitler was your grandfather and no one but you knew?

I mean, most people tend to feel some responsibility for their environment, be it society, be it the planet's health. You wouldn't like to be called "that guy who didn't help save the earth", would you? (Obviously, you wouldn't be called that, but the principle stands.)

I don't like mixing up fiction and discussions like these, but just for fun:
In movies, you would be that old wiseguy who was sceptic about zombies really existing, and eventually getting eaten by one because he refused to stay in broad daylight.

[Furore]

Yeah, there's your typical human being for you.

Would it bother you if Hitler was your grandfather and no one but you knew?

Probably not. You don't have to think or act as your relatives do and sometimes you forgive a relative you care about enough for the things that are unforgivable.

I mean, most people tend to feel some responsibility for their environment, be it society, be it the planet's health. You wouldn't like to be called "that guy who didn't help save the earth", would you? (Obviously, you wouldn't be called that, but the principle stands.)

When I'm dead they can call me whatever they want. As I'll have lived a better life there's a good chance they'd be saying it out of spite or jealousy or something.

I don't like mixing up fiction and discussions like these, but just for fun:
In movies, you would be that old wiseguy who was sceptic about zombies really existing, and eventually getting eaten by one because he refused to stay in broad daylight.

You know what I don't hate? I don't hate vests. [/end left4dead reference]
In the movies you'd be the guy who gets eaten by me as a zombie. Because you have brains and zombies like eating brains if popular culture is to be believed.

The same popular culture in which global warming is an immediate threat which we might all die from tomorrow. That's all I see the fearmongering as. A simple threat that a little research will show isn't as much of a worry as a few other things. It's totally overhyped.

But I mentioned the graphs I saw in an earlier post. They really didn't show too big a link between carbon emissions and global warming. And I was awesome with graphs in high school!!! My point still stands. Why worry about the effects of global warning?

ALSO! Why does anyone personally give a shit if global warming does strike in a century or five? That never got answered...

[RagnaToad]

When are you going to stop acting like this thread is a joke and start realising that the health of our planet has nothing to do with whether people (or their children, or THEIR children,...) die or not?

We're not complaining about our far offspring dying because of lack of oxygen.

We're just talking about a sense of responsibility for the planet that gives you everything it has.

Your attitude is downright synical.

I myself am agnostic, and I have respect for atheists. But it simply stuns me that you don't even believe in maintaining this planet.

There's nothing wrong with you because you use deodorants or take baths, but there ís something wrong with you if you claim not to give a, pardon me French, shit about what happens to the world you live in.

You are a malfunctioning human being, in my opinion.

P.S. These statements are obviously a reaction to how you make yourself come across with that arrogant and indifferent attitude.

[Furore]

When are you going to stop acting like this thread is a joke and start realising that the health of our planet has nothing to do with whether people (or their children, or THEIR children,...) die or not?

We're not complaining about our far offspring dying because of lack of oxygen.

We're just talking about a sense of responsibility for the planet that gives you everything it has.

Your attitude is downright synical.

Honestly if you really feel responsible for the health of the planet you'd do all you could to make a difference, aye? So don't use technology, don't wear mass manufactured clothing, don't use any hygiene products, don't use tap water as it too undergoes some form of treatment that wasn't in the original world plans. Hell, live like one of those fellows who only wears handmade clothing and shuns technology as it's evil or whatever.

You people make me laugh as you're a part of the problem even if you are doing a few things to lessen your impact. Your very lives detract from the planet's health just as mine does and unless you want to live in an extreme way (like the days of old) or die, you'll continue to. I'm just unwilling to change because either way the planet's gonna feel the impact eventually (even if you guys do recycle water and use roll-on deodorant or whatever) and so I don't feel the need to care. It doesn't help that humanity has more pressing matters to fix...

I myself am agnostic, and I have respect for atheists. But it simply stuns me that you don't even believe in maintaining this planet.

Oh wow, you're something I ain't and you respect people I ain't. What's your take on Christians with a unique outlook I must ask? And as I said above, if you truly cared you'd be living like a technophobic weirdo. There's also a good chance your life expectancy may go down as technology does help with longevity somewhat.

There's nothing wrong with you because you use deodorants or take baths, but there ís something wrong with you if you claim not to give a, pardon me French, shit about what happens to the world you live in.

I prefer to give a shit about people and events in the here and now rather than getting sentimental about a giant rock that I'll die before anyways. Besides, you speak of future events and are you psychic? Science has a long history of epically failing with a few of their predictions when they don't have enough evidence and as there's a few camps on this issue, the answers aren't known even nearly for certain.

You are a malfunctioning human being, in my opinion.

Well I always did prefer the word 'honest', but say it however you wish.

P.S. These statements are obviously a reaction to how you make yourself come across with that arrogant and indifferent attitude.

I love you too. How's that for indifferent?

[RagnaToad]

I never said I wasn't part of the problem.

I eat steak, which apparently uses liters of (drinkable!) water during production.

And I never said I did ALL I can do for this planet.

If everyone would want to do what's best for this planet, they'd stop making children and let the human race die out.

[RagnaToad]

You're being kind of a hypocrite.

You're using the argument "it doesn't affect me". But you DO want to support people living in areas with lots of war, famine, poverty and whatnot.

Those things don't affect you in any way either...

And if you're going to tell us that you feel responsible and almost obliged to support your fellow human being, we can apply that argument to the health of our environment.

[Sasquatch]

You're using the argument "it doesn't affect me". But you DO want to support people living in areas with lots of war, famine, poverty and whatnot.

Because war, famine, poverty, etc. actually exist, and can actually be changed. They're not used as ammunition against Capitalism, like "global warming" is.

And if you're going to tell us that you feel responsible and almost obliged to support your fellow human being, we can apply that argument to the health of our environment.

The difference is that the "health of the environment" may or may not be changed in the slightest way by any human actions, and it may or may not be affected by one person's actions.

War, poverty, famine, etc.: Such-and-such number of people will die this year as a result of war, famine, poverty, etc.

"Global warming": Maybe, sometime in the future -- don't know when or if -- something bad might happen which may or may not hurt people.

[RagnaToad]

Because war, famine, poverty, etc. actually exist, and can actually be changed. They're not used as ammunition against Capitalism, like "global warming" is.

lol?
Let me guess: All those scientists that talk about the bad state the planet is in are all biased, European and Russian Marxists?

"Global warming": Maybe, sometime in the future -- don't know when or if -- something bad might happen which may or may not hurt people.

I never expressed worries about a possible bad outcome for the human race. If anything, the extinction of mankind would be a good thing. I'm just talking about taking care of your environment.

The only problem people are having with the "Global Warming" part is that "warming" doesn't sound bad, considering how hot weather is called "good weather". And of course, the threat that you mgith actually have to miss out on some luxurities.

And I understand that people think money spent on environmental issues is a waste and should be reserved to economic, social and war related problems. But the planet can actually be helped by spending léss money. Using less gas, using "green energy".

And I knew the American car business would collapse some day, when I read about the Asian car industry spending a lot of time and money on environment friendly cars, while America refused to see this new green minded market.

Of course, more factors have played a major role in the downfall of the car industry, but I'm just saying. The green market has already boosted a lot of different industries for those who are prepared to face the facts and see the potential.

[Furore]

You're being kind of a hypocrite.

You're using the argument "it doesn't affect me". But you DO want to support people living in areas with lots of war, famine, poverty and whatnot.

Those things don't affect you in any way either...

But they do. I think of these people who are actually suffering right now and think 'Damn, that sucks. But you know I could actually make an impact there for one or two people'. Hell, I get the occasional message back from some places. When they have very little, getting a little more is a big thing and I'm only too happy to give them what would otherwise be wasted on some extra cigars or something.

And if you're going to tell us that you feel responsible and almost obliged to support your fellow human being, we can apply that argument to the health of our environment.

Except the environment isn't a human being AND those in existence effected by the environment aren't likely to be screwed too soon. As I've said before and will probably say again, there are more real problems out there than Global Warming which could benefit from your time and money a lot more. Thinking of spending several grand on an eco-friendly version of what you have and in perfect working order to? Don't be a smug bastard, donate that shit to charity!

[RagnaToad]

Except the environment isn't a human being AND those in existence effected by the environment aren't likely to be screwed too soon.

So we should just stop caring about anything that's not "a human being"?

I doubt you live by that rule.

And like I said a million times before, it's not because it won't kill human beings that it's healthy for our planet. You'd be surprised how long we'd survive on a shitty planet.

And your philantropy for those who "exist now" is kind of futile if (hypothetically) the human race will suffer far more in the future, isn't it?

[Furore]

So we should just stop caring about anything that's not "a human being"?

I doubt you live by that rule.

You are correct. I also have a soft spot for cute widdle kittens and anything rodent-like.

And like I said a million times before, it's not because it won't kill human beings that it's healthy for our planet. You'd be surprised how long we'd survive on a shitty planet.

Good thing it isn't shitty then.

And your philantropy for those who "exist now" is kind of futile if (hypothetically) the human race will suffer far more in the future, isn't it?

So those alive now should keep suffering while we try to protect those who mightn't exist later on anyways? The future's not something any of us can know for sure I'd think. Unless you're a psychic, the avatar of an all knowing God or something like that.

[RagnaToad]

So those alive now should keep suffering while we try to protect those who mightn't exist later on anyways?

I don't see where this is coming from.

It's not like we're stealing money from charities to build windmills...

I just don't understand how some people don't care about how nature is being deprived from its essential beauty.