Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- ShaunM0
What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien…- are you reposting comments?! i saw that on page 3 or 4.akrokdesign
- for the love of copy and paste!?akrokdesign
- raf0
FF to 6:20 if you're not keen on watching the whole thing or have seen it before...
- raf0
It is not true that 90+% of scientists support Global Warming Theory.
Many of those who do, do it because it is a political issue, rather than a scientific one.
Being a scientist, can you get a grant working to prove the theory right? Of course.
Can you get one to prove it wrong? Highly unlikely. It would be politically incorrect. There's no money in disagreeing with the theory, there are high political risks for your career though.Scientist's salaries, mortgages, careers depend on their approach.
That's why they have to say shit like:"the long-term trend in global temperatures [..] according to the Met office data, is clearly up."
How do they know that we're not past the peak if temperatures keep lowering year by year for over a decade? They have to repeat what they have been preaching and I bet a lot of them pray for a year of warming numbers.
- joeth1
350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.
- 350 is a nice number, clearly not off the top of somebody's head.raf
- Yeah, major scientific organizations all across the globe are going with a number off the top of somebody's head.joeth
- still, wouldn't hurt go 350.akrokdesign
- ukit0
Pinning your anti-global warming argument on whether temperatures are going up or not isn't a very good one when you look over the past 100 years.
Or to take a longer view:
So this is the point where you shift arguments and say, well yea sure, but how do we know it's because of humans, it could just as well be because of energy from the sun/ natural cyclical change/ Al Gore's evil plan to dominate the Earth/ some other random untested theory.
But it seems like a hell of a coincidence that that spike happened over the same period that humans started burning fuel, building factories, driving cars etc.
- joeth1
This (pretend) debate over man's effect on climate will go on forever. The oil & coal industries will make sure of that.
The debate about whether or not we need to act is over. There's way too much evidence saying we need to cut emissions right now.
- joeth1
People who have been posting that BBC article seem to have missed this part...
"In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up."
- DrBombay-1
What is the worst that could happen? We pay more for power and pollute less? BFD
- lowimpakt0
@ GeorgesII
i asked you what global tax you were referring to?
as for what is happening in the developing world.. have you heard about clean development mechanisms? adaptation funds?
- yeah, the IMF got the of debt too, don't you see that this is another way to impoverish those country. read the rolling stones article because the countries that will actuallyGeorgesII
- Stone article because not a single country will benefit, it will be just as old time, if you're rich you can keep on polluting as long as you payGeorgesII
- wasting ressources, wtv, in a long term you'll see that its not a viable plan. The tax is called Carbon taxGeorgesII
- PonyBoy0
- nice.airey
- love itbliznutty
- she's full of shit. lol.akrokdesign
- ukit0
The basic science behind global warming is pretty indisputable. It's on a level with "the Earth is round," rotates around the Sun etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gre…
The amount of carbon, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere determines the temperature of the planet. You can look at other planets that have less greenhouse gases and are not hospitable to life. There were also periods in the past where there was a much higher amount in the atmosphere and the Earth was warmer - ie, dinosaur era.
The only question is whether humans are able to influence that at all by polluting. I would love it if it turned out not to be true, but right now if you listen to what mainstream scientists are saying, they think it is. But ultimately, I don't see why ending use of oil wouldn't be a good thing, there are so many political and economic benefits that could be gained from that.
- BusterBoy0
There are cynics on both sides of the argument that will totally screw up an otherwise important debate.
Myself...I am a bit of a sceptic when it comes to climate change. For every person who says there is less polar ice now than in previous years, I'll show you someone who states there maybe less older ice, but much more new ice than for a long time.
Whether climate change exists or not, there's a good argument for cleaning up our act. Surely mankind is "smart" enough to develop energy producing technologies that don't pollute. Even if it just means breating cleaner air, I'm all for that.
But, on the other side, this needs to be done rationally otherwise it's going to lead to far more problems than we think.
- ukit0
I don't see how that really matters raf, there are people on both ends who stand to benefit obviously.
On one hand you have - Al Gore and three of his Wall Street buddies planning to invest in the market for carbon offsets.
On the other - the oil industry.
Now which of these two groups do you think has slightly more money, influence, ability to twist the public debate?
Al Gore couldn't even get himself elected President after he won the election. Something tells me it's a bit of a stretch he could convince 90+% of the world's scientists into participating in some giant ponzi scheme.
The oil industry, on the other hand, is proven to have spent millions on disinformation about this subject. It's well documented and the agenda isn't a mystery.
- lol @ "Al Gore couldn't even get himself elected President after he won the election. "version3
- I think Global Warmers have more power. They have the US President, the EU, Nobel Commitee.raf
- also 90+% is a blatant stretchraf
- Oh right, the Nobel Committee, when will they end their reign of terror over the worldukit
- version30
What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
- raf0
"The new carboncredit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.
Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.
The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.
[..]
Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets."The Great American Bubble Machine, Rolling Stone, Jul 13, 2009
http://www.rollingstone.com/poli…
- joeth1
- Same bs Tobacco industry pulled... http://www.youtube.c…joeth
- PonyBoy-1
I'm having a tire-burning party this weekend if anyone is interested...
