Kasz216 said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
Astrodust said:
dtekdahl00 said:
Bias exists either way. You're either labled a fool for dissenting the common view, or you're hailed for buying into an ideology thats not scientific |
There is no common view when it comes to global warming. It's not an issue like cigarettes cause cancer. The problem is that people are not educated on the issues and form oppinions. |
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC,[8] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions" There is a goddamned concensus on the matter. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar, and anyone who rejects the idea outright is worse. Global Warming IS real and we DO have to fight it. People didn't think CFCs were destroying the environment in the 70s and, lo and behold, yes they were. It took until the 80's had almost ended to fix the problem, and the ozone layer is not expected to recover for an additional 35-85 years because of our innaction. Once again we are faced with a real threat, and it's time we enacted policy that will curb this threat and protect all of humanity from self distruction. And if you think I'm a liar, tell me why the Pentagon agrees with me. Really, why has the Pentagon created (but not published, in spite of leaks) documents that state that global climate change is happening, that it is human caused, and that it is the greatest threat to national security? And, moreso, why are they doing this in regards to a situation that certain people wish weren't true? It's because global warming is real, and it is a much more real threat to our nation than any terrorist other than the fear mongers in the Bush administration. And perhaps even more of a threat than those constitution defiling scumbags. Yes, even the Pentagon says that global warming is not only a real threat to our nation, but also a clear and imminent danger. And it should be treated like one. Stomped out of existence, left only as a memory of how the government improved our lives. Yet no one who has the power to do anything about it comes with the requisite balls to use that power for the good of all men. Because people are stupid, and can be convinced that anything is a lie, be it moon landings or global warming. All they have to do is want to believe, and a liar like our President can convince them that they were right when the evidence UNEQUIVICABLY* states otherwise. *Note: This is the word of the international science community. They have said that human-influenced climate change is as real as the keyboard I'm pounding on now and the food you will eat at your next meal. Let us hope it is not your last. |
There was a consensus on global cooling as well i believe. Due to deforstation i believe. The truth is... they've found some correlation, but no causation. Even then the correlation isn't exact enough to where i'd fully believe it was the case. After all natural green house gas production is far far bigger then our own greenhouse production. The only arguements i've seen on this is that somehow nature can tell natural green house gasses from man made ones and selectivly filters out only the natural causes. |
Obviously you haven't attended many science courses, then. The environment is designed to sustain certain levels of greenhouse gasses and, like a liver being destroyed by an alcoholic, it can only soak up so much so fast, leaving the rest to deal damage until it can catch up with the "backstock."
The carbon cycle is rather delicate, and relies on the ability of the oceans and soil to absorb carbon, and both of those reserves can only hold so much carbon before it become an issue. We cannot force much more carbon into the oceans because it has an open exchange with the atmosphere. Carbon can move rather freely between the two. Plus, we'd probably kill sealife it we tried. We can stick it in the ground, but if it's stored there it'll espace in any sort of natural disaster and if it's used in soil enriching projects (which actually help the environment twice over, and should be supported more heavily) then you can only use so much before the soil becomes saturated and will hold no more.
The Earth can process X amount of carbon, when we make Y more carbon enter the atmosphere than the Earth can process, Y more carbon stays in the air until the Earth can catch up to that amount. It just keeps building up on us, because we have knocked the natural order of things out of balance and not given nature enough time to catch up. And environmental scientists have already stated that even if we cut pollution to practically 0 today we may not feel the full effects of what we have done up through today for another 50 years.
Think about that. Not only are we dealing with a precise, even sensitive, piece of machinary we don't fully understand (our planet), but the reprecussions of our misdeeds will almost certainly not be brought upon our heads but the heads of our grandchildren.
Regardless of whether or not the danger is as severe as THE PENTAGON says, when it takes 50 years to get results I'd say you're better off safe than extinct.
