By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Convention held in New York for Global Warming science..... the truth

Ickalanda said:
It exists but is also a natural occurrence so there is no problem with it existing. It does not exist in a drastic enough amount to do permanent harm to the Earth as the Earth is very good at stabilizing itself.

 John McCain disagrees with you.



Around the Network

@Kasz

The economic havoc levied against the US and UK are not meant to be solutions. They are an example of how some politico desire to use the mass hysteria to push a very political agenda



_____________________________________________________

Check out the VGC Crunch this Podcast and Blog at www.tsnetcast.com

senseinobaka said:
@Kasz

The economic havoc levied against the US and UK are not meant to be solutions. They are an example of how some politico desire to use the mass hysteria to push a very political agenda

That's what i'm saying. That's a reason why people would "make up" global warming.

There is plenty of money to be made in anti-global warming legislature.  So both sides would have reasons to fabricate data.



lolita said:
I think it happens naturally but the human's actions make it happen faster than it should. That's why I do the small gestures that can slow it down. I don't know about you but, I still want to live!

living is overated =)



Owner of all consoles cept DS.....Currently in love with prototype!

Oh god no, not more people ignoring science because it doesn't fit what they want.

Sure, the 9/11 is a govt. conspiracy, the moon landing is a fake, there is no evidence whatsoever for evolution and the world is actually cooling. I really do give up arguing on the internet with people who are either just baiting by saying things they don't really believe or who are otherwise merely arguing when they are entirely ignorant of the facts.

Its strange for a culture where you would expect there to be a high level of intelligence (the net) that you can find such absolute stupidity. =\

 

Edit: At all the people going 'ITS POLITICAL ITS POLITICAL', of course its political as politicians will seize anything they think will help them win but more importantly its economic and even more importantly still its scientific. Read some of the summarized reports from the IPCC or at least some scientific literature before you criticise it blindly simply because it has become a major political issue. 



Around the Network

Global Warming... no, scientist don't call it this anymore.
Climate Change due to Carbon Dioxide emissions... yes. More CO2 in the atmosphere changes the temperature and moisture retention. Pretty simple.

"How can global warming be real if this winter is seeing record cold?"

When a ice cube melts in a glass of water, the water get colder.

In the summer the Earth is closer to the sun and tilted so that the northern hemisphere is facing it, with more CO2 in the atmosphere evaporated water stays up there longer and forms bigger clouds/storms. (Also more water compared to salt in the ocean makes for a bunch of other factors)

Infrared light from the sun is trapped with more CO2, meaning slightly warmer temperatures, melting more polar ice than pre-industrialism.

This is where the glass of ice water comes in, as the ice melts the ocean gets cooler around the northern ice cap. When winter comes the earth goes further away from the sun but the cooler water around the northern ice cap remains and creates harsher winters.

So it just so happens that these changes came about the same time as industrialization? Sure.

Here's an experiment you can do if you don't "believe" in global warming. Park your running gasoline powered car(emissions simulator) in a garage (experimental ecosystem) with the door closed (green house) and see if the biodiversity in the garage is challenged to survive.

Science isn't like religion: even if you don't believe, it still exists.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

hsrob said:
Even if the agenda of global is being exaggerated for some political purpose, the theoretical risk of global warming still exists. The simple fact remains that there are more people currently alive on earth than the combined total for the rest of human history and hence our ability to impact the environment is far greater than ever before. Isn't it better that the issue is closely scrutinized now, rather than in 100 years where the damage we have caused may be too great to reverse.

Out of interest, for the people that aren't on the global warming bandwagon, what do you think is the motivation for people to exaggerate claims of global warming?

I've heard people say that the scientists make these outrageous claims just to get more research funding.

 Same reason plumbers will lie to you about your plumbing, mechanics lie about your car, and doctors mislead you about your health. Don't trust professionals. They all have an angle.

But random people on the internet aren't getting paid to tell you about global warming, so you can trust them.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

I think no matter what we do, the temperature is going to rise. We need to stop wasting trillions of dollars trying to stop it, and instead spend that money figuring out how we are going to live in a world that is getting warmer.

of course, you can't win votes with reason, so no one is going to make a movie about that.



TheRealMafoo said:
(1)I think no matter what we do, the temperature is going to rise. (2)We need to stop wasting trillions of dollars trying to stop it, and (3)instead spend that money figuring out how we are going to live in a world that is getting warmer.

of course, (4)you can't win votes with reason, so no one is going to make a movie about that.

1) Huh?  How do you know this?

2)Trillions of Dollars? Really?  When?  I am pretty sure trillions of dollars would have bought us all Air powered cars by now.  

3) Huh? 

4) In the US people will be more likely to vote for you if you deny Global Warming and say that Thomas Jefferson walked with the dinosaurs or the US brings democracy to the Middle East.     



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Oh noes!!!1 The Global Warming bandwagon faggitz are l1ying noobzors who have teh p0litic@l @g3nd@s!!!!!1

Switching from oil would be a good thing anyways. You know why the U.S. economy is tanking right now? Oil. Energy costs are rising and preventing the economy from going anywhere, which is aggravated by our weak dollar which causes the price of oil to go even higher because we are the world's largest oil consumer.

Even if global warming is a hoax, changing to an inexpensive alternate fuel source will be a good thing. Oil will keep going higher and make other forms of energy cheap in comparison.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson