File :-(, x, )
soon to be homeless, thanks global warming Anonymous
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Homeless? Hardly, they'll likely die first you moran.
>> Anonymous
how does polar bear know what global warmings is
>> Anonymous
they are not in danger, lurk moar
>> Anonymous
>>125705
Who the fuck are u, fucking ignorant?? Bush???
>> Anonymous
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&hl=en

polar bears have survived warming trends, and they'll survive this one as well.

>>125706
who the fuck are you? that you al?!
>> Anonymous
liberal LIES!
>> Zyjek
>>125702
You require ZOOM.
>> Anonymous
Anonymouse will provide polar bears with Apples and we let them sleep in our fridges, lil' polar bear, have no fear, the legion is here.
>> soon to be less hungry, thanks to global warming Yogi
     File :-(, x)
more carbon dioxide = more plant growth = more food production = more picnicers due to warmer weather = more food for bears = more bears.
>> Anonymous
>>125792

. . . not that they'll be able to eat the food once the ice melts and they all drown. Unless. . . (cue picture of underwater ninja polar bears)
>> Whut !TA0T5gpKEQ
>>125794
Protip: Bears are excellent swimmers.
>> Anonymous
BEARS: Godless killing machines
>> Anonymous
>>125806

>>HUMANS: Godless killing machines.

Fixed it for you.
>> Anonymous
>>125803

Protip: drowning-related polar bear deaths are at an all time high. they're not excellent swimmers for more than a few dozen MILES.
>> lol Anonymous
Protip: Polar bears can swim for hours, and have been tagged at traveling up to 100km per day swimming.
Protip: The polar bear population has actually been increasing dramatically.
Protip: 2 scientists just went to the North Pole to research global warming but had to come back because of the extreme cold - between -50 and -100 degrees F.
Protip: Global warming is a load of shit. No global warming = no funding and tax dollars from us.
>> Anonymous
WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE MORE POLAR BEARS!
>> Anonymous
Oh, there is global warming, but if you take into account some logic then you'll understand that in the north it actually means lower temperatures. Think of ice melting in general.
There are a lot of great sources for material like this, so please do your research before posting in an argument on the internet.
>> Anonymous
>>125891

Lies
>> Anonymous
>>125792

Global warming = droughts
droughts = less food
less food = less people
less people = less global warming
less global warming = more bears

These things work out fine by themselves.
>> Anonymous
You mean research like this?

The link for google video that someone posted is already down (lolol):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U

Disputing "An Inconvenient Truth" in particular:

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

Why look....Mars is having global warming, too! But...there are no humans on Mars!
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

So what could cause that on Mars AND Earth? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm
>> Anonymous
>>125891
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35233-2004Nov8.html
Study Says Polar Bears Could Face Extinction

>>125906

Different type of global warming moron. Runaway global warming.

>>The scientific community is not in agreement.

I lol'd.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249659,00.html

Here's a link from fox news. Liberal agenda?
>> Anonymous
You're content to post 2 articles which can be easily disputed?

Try checking out the nationalreview article again for info too large to post here on polar bears and glaciers/antarctic ice.

And funny how you use Fox News as an excuse that it isn't a liberal agenda. So, if CNN reported that Bush's poll numbers were up, that would make them conservative, right? Right?

If you also would watch the other documentary that has been posted (as I'm sure you've seen Al Gore's film - and yes, I have as well), then you'd see that the IPCC report is full of names that AREN'T scientists - even names that barely have any association with the report. A lead author of the IPCC admits this (about 4 min in to the film). Even if scientists DISAGREE, their names are still put on the list.
>> Anonymous
>>125913
>>You're content to post 2 articles which can be easily disputed?

Dispute them.

>>And funny how you use Fox News as an excuse that it isn't a liberal agenda. So, if CNN reported that Bush's poll numbers were up, that would make them conservative, right? Right?

Most news sources reported on the same thing. Fox news is just one of them.

>>If you also would watch the other documentary that has been posted (as I'm sure you've seen Al Gore's film - and yes, I have as well), then you'd see that the IPCC report is full of names that AREN'T scientists - even names that barely have any association with the report. A lead author of the IPCC admits this (about 4 min in to the film). Even if scientists DISAGREE, their names are still put on the list.

I have not watch either. Usually the way it works. Anyone who reviewed the report had their name put on it. Most of the major criticisms about the report was that it was either too conservative, wasn't accurate about how much it would cost to go about the necessary changes, or didn't mention any of the "positive" aspects about global warming.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
>> Anonymous
Sage for National Review

Anyway, I'll bet 10bux that a few years from now, the same retards disputing global warming will turn around and go "It's real, but it's too late to do anything, so why change our behavior?"
>> Anonymous
>125913
>>You're content to post 2 articles which can be easily disputed?

See below. You have your consensus. Position statements. liberal agenda right?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222

Joint science academies
US National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Global_Warming_Essay
Geological Society of London.
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
Geological Society of America
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm
American Association of State Climatologists
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_
07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
American Chemical Society

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The consensus is a liberal agenda.
>> Anonymous
Blame Canada
>> Anonymous
>>125924

>Geological Society of America

says,

"Significant research remains to be done to understand the causes and consequences of global climate change, formulate sustainable energy strategies and policies for the future, and adapt to changes in Earth’s climate"

so even they don't know the causes of global warming?
>>125920

>Anyway, I'll bet 10bux that a few years from now, the same retards disputing global warming will turn around and go "It's real, but it's too late to do anything, so why change our behavior?"

What, like the same "scientists" who proclaimed that by 2000 we'd be out of food or in an ice age or one of many numerous doomsday predictions? Where are they now, hmmm?

>> Anonymous
So wat do you intend to do about global warming then? If you really believe global warming is cause by human from burning fossil fuels, then the only logical and near term solution is to go fully Fission Nuclear energy. Are you willing to do that?

None of the other present alternative energy comes close to being able to support the amount of energy we obtained using fossil fuel. You also have to consider all the infrastructure change needed to transform the present fossil fuel economy to that of maybe hydrogen or electric? To do that requires massive expenditure, requiring more energy and where will all these energy comes from? All will lead to an increase in waste heat output, which is also a cause of global warming not just CO2.

Also, food production is a major cause of another green house gas, methane. This has not been given as much publicity as CO2, but it is significant. Deforestation of the tropics is also probably a major factor but because of PC, no ones wants to talk about it. How do you tell a developing country that it cannot cut down it trees to build farms, housings, industries to better the lives of it's own people.
>> Anonymous
So basically, the world as we are in now, if we are the cause of global warming, are fucked. Unless we kill off maybe 90% of the world, trying to cut emission, note that Kyoto treaty is saying is cut emission and not cease emission, will not result in a reverse in global warming trend, just a slight, probably negligible decrease in the slope. What is needed is an abundant energy source that can be use to lock the generated CO2, CH4 and other greenhouse gases back into the earth, note that this will probably results in a lower CO2 level than before the industrialization because of the extra energy generated by our civilization will heat up the environment too.

So basically all these are just talks, no one wants to do anything about it. Al Gore's household along spends more than twice the amount of electricity a month than the average american household in 2 years! So what if he buys carbon offset, he could have donate those money and still save energy right? He is the real hypocrite.
>> Anonymous
>>125929
>>Significant research remains to be done to understand the causes and consequences of global climate change, formulate sustainable energy strategies and policies for the future, and adapt to changes in Earth’s climate"
>>so even they don't know the causes of global warming?


No, they just say more research needs to be done. They're scientists that's what they do. Now, what does the rest of the paper say along with everything else I posted.

>>so even they don't know the causes of global warming?

Reading comprehension.

>>What, like the same "scientists" who proclaimed that by 2000 we'd be out of food or in an ice age or one of many numerous doomsday predictions? Where are they now, hmmm?

LOL.

>> Anonymous
>>125929
>>125932
>>125933

Oh, wow. Lol


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics

Liberal agenda right?

As to what to do what global warming. Start moving away from carbon fuel sources and try being more efficient. Something that is already happening slowly.
>> Anonymous
>>125933
>>So basically, the world as we are in now, if we are the cause of global warming, are fucked. Unless we kill off maybe 90% of the world, trying to cut emission,

Oh wow, really? Who said that?
>> Anonymous
>>125924

Thread ended at this post.
>> Anonymous
>>125932
>>So wat do you intend to do about global warming then? If you really believe global warming is cause by human from burning fossil fuels, then the only logical and near term solution is to go fully Fission Nuclear energy. Are you willing to do that?

Oh really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4629239.stm

France gets nuclear fusion plant

>>Funny how schmucks like you, and others, need to be tricked into believing something by lies, propaganda, misinformation in movie form by people like Gore and Moore.

See
>>125924

>>How do you tell a developing country that it cannot cut down it trees to build farms, housings, industries to better the lives of it's own people.
>> Anonymous
I live in Argentina, and the glaciers at the south of my country decreased 40% in 20 years approximately.

Of course there's no global warming.
>> Anonymous
>>125943

I know about fusion, just how soon can that go into full scale energy generation? With all the gloom and doom you global warming pple are talking about, it seems like you want everything now and cheap. ya right.

>>125940

This is just a rough guess on my part on what we can survive on renewable energy, aka. solar, wind etc and the food generation capability etc. On the pessimitic side. Maybe we can survive on 80% pop. for all I know.

>>125944

I never say there is no global warming, just that it may not be cause by human. My guess is probably a solar cycle event but that is just my hunch.

Btw, in case you guys haven't figured it out, all the carbon on earth is basically a constant, so even if we release all the lock out carbon by burning all the fossil fuel in the world, we would probably get a temperature of the early earth period? Probably at most 10C hotter? not enough to kill all life on Earth, as live started around that temperature to begin with.
>> Anonymous
>>125946
>> we can survive on 80% pop. for all I know.

Oh wow. For all you know, right? First time I heard that. I don't think our infrastructure would survive. Infrastructure that can be fixed and worked with or improved (see japan).

>>I know about fusion, just how soon can that go into full scale energy generation? With all the gloom and doom you global warming pple are talking about, it seems like you want everything now and cheap. ya right.

20 to 40 years.

This is where being more efficient comes in.

>>Btw, in case you guys haven't figured it out, all the carbon on earth is basically a constant, so even if we release all the lock out carbon by burning all the fossil fuel in the world, we would probably get a temperature of the early earth period? Probably at most 10C hotter? not enough to kill all life on Earth, as live started around that temperature to begin with.

Oh really? And what would be the result of the average temp all around the world increasing by 10 degrees celcius? Might be difficult to get food with all the drought. Some methane in the premafrost would also like to have a word with you.


>>My guess is probably a solar cycle event but that is just my hunch.

Right. Your hunch. 125924 would like to have a word with you.
>> Anonymous
>>125943

Regarding this, I am not saying the poor countries are the biggest polluters. Maybe I did not make it clear, but the best CO2 locking mechanism we have is the tropical rain forest, almost all of which is in the developing countires, thus the statement about telling them not to cut down the trees. Same story with bio-diversity and new drugs for cancer treatment etc... and they are still cutting the forest down by the football fields a second.

Japan is also efficient mainly because they lived crowded together, less energy spent on indiv transportation and thus a more efficient public transportation. Again, going efficient is only slowing down global warming. Unless you can recapture what man has been putting out into the atmosphere for the last 200years or so, if that is what is causing global warming, being efficient is not going to stop it.
>> Anonymous
>>125950

You think there will be drought? I think there will be less places with drought. All Ice ages have increase land mass of desert area compared to present. You have to remember the rise in sea level also means larger water surface for evaporation, more water in the air means more rain for most parts of the world. You believe what you want to. No one can prove anything at the moment.
>> Anonymous
>>125951
>>ave is the tropical rain forest, almost all of which is in the developing countires, thus the statement about telling them not to cut down the trees. Same story with bio-diversity and new drugs for cancer treatment etc... and they are still cutting the forest down by the football fields a second.

Some green algae would like to have a word with you. And developed countries are doing it too (canada).

So, you encourage said countries to practice selective logging.

>>Unless you can recapture what man has been putting out into the atmosphere for the last 200years or so, if that is what is causing global warming, being efficient is not going to stop it.

How about using it as an energy source?

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html
>> Anonymous
>>125953

Droughts in some parts of the world and floods in others.

>>No one can prove anything at the moment.

The Earth Simulator would like to have a word with you.

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/

>>You believe what you want to.

See
>>125924
>> Anonymous
>>125954

Temperate forest has limited growth cycle a year compared to all year round growth of tropical forest. Algae is a good idea. But hydrogen is a difficult way to go because of storage and transportation purposes, it might work, but will definitely require massive ammount of initial capital and resources input, not just market driven.
>> Anonymous
>>125956

ya right. I work with simulations, I noe how well they can predict stuff, so far not very good, too many assumptions.
>> Anonymous
>>125953
>>You believe what you want to.

I definitely don't believe killing off 90% of the population is the solution. And I have not heard anyone else saying that either.

>>You have to remember the rise in sea level also means larger water surface for evaporation, more water in the air means more rain for most parts of the world.

And this will be great for our food supply, right?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/123469.php

>>I recently visited the Carteret Islands, 100 km north east of Bougainville, having heard that they were suffering badly from rising seas caused by global warming. All 6 of the islands in the group are being badly damaged and the islands look like making history as the first atoll to be abandoned due to rising seas. Food crops have been destroyed, houses have been washed away and malaria is now the most common cause of children dying.
>> Anonymous
>>125958
>>Temperate forest has limited growth cycle a year compared to all year round growth of tropical forest. Algae is a good idea. But hydrogen is a difficult way to go because of storage and transportation purposes, it might work, but will definitely require massive ammount of initial capital and resources input, not just market driven.

When conventional carbon fuel sources become expensive, alternatives start becoming more and more viable. And as for fusion, do you know how much money is being pumped into it? Second only to the international Space station, and people were saying that would never be built for the longest time.

And selective cutting is still not applicable how? A lot of trees would stop being wasted.

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

>>A relatively small percentage of large landowners clear vast sections of the Amazon for cattle pastureland.60-70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon results from cattle ranches while the rest mostly results from small-scale subsistence agriculture. Despite the widespread press attention, large-scale farming (i.e. soybeans) currently contributes relatively little to total deforestation in the Amazon. Most soybean cultivation takes place outside the rainforest in the neighboring cerrado grassland ecosystem and in areas that have already been cleared. Logging results in forest degradation but rarely direct deforestation. However, studies have showed a close correlation between logging and future clearing for settlement and farming.

Logging doesn't seem to be the largest problem. Tell some cattle farmers to control themselves.

>>125958
You work with simulations using computers that can handle as much data as the Earth Simulator?
>> Anonymous
>>125957
>>125951
>>125965

Using the rain forest example, how can developing countries be clean and not hurt their development?

http://www.solutions-site.org/kids/stories/KScat1_sol3.htm

>>In response to destructive slash-and-burn agricultural techniques, farmers in Peru are moving to something called "integrated aquaculture". Fish-farming, using non-destructive organic methods, is providing a source of food and income for Peruvian farmers, without endangering the fragile ecosystem of the Amazon rain forest.

A solution for this particular case?
>> Anonymous
>>125958

What if you throw a shit load of data at them? Enough to build a virtual earth?

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/
>> Anonymous
>>125906

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_sceptics
>> Anonymous
Let's make the analogy between global warming and a man holding a ticking package. Everyone around you (the scientists) say there's a good chance that what the dude is holding is a time bomb that will go off within a few minutes. You have no idea what to think, but these scientists are supposed to know what they're talking about. Of course, they could be lying, and the package could just have a harmless clock in it. But are you really gonna take those last remaining minutes arguing with the scientists over whether or not its going to explode? Wouldn't you rather just take their advice and get the hell out of there, just for safety's sake?

That's how I see the current global warming debate. If the scientists are dirty, filthy liars and have a crazy 'liberal agenda', and we try to improve the earth in vain, then oh well, whats the harm done? Improved efficiency?

On the other hand, if it really IS a problem, and we really CAN be endangering the lives of future generations, then we can change the way we do things and at least try to help. Ignoring it or denying it seems to be extremely ridiculous and reckless.


Just my 2 cents.
>> HAL9000 !aUC8h1oEKI
>>125983
well said.
>> Anonymous
We damage the environment more and more each year. It recovers from this damage each year, however, it seems like we're causing, albeit slowly, changes to occur. On the one side, there are alarmists like Al Gore who get people riled, and on the other side the realists say "that's bullshit", and thus they feed each other's position. The Truth is: yes, we are damaging the environment but no, it's not undoable and the Solution is just to move steadily and reasonably towards better (less damaging, yet efficient) use of our resources. Examples: LED lighting over incandescent or CF bulbs; clean-burning fuels instead of coal and other heavy-polluting substances; a move towards safe-nuclear, wind farms, and solar collectors.
>> Anonymous
Global Warming is a liberal SCAM.

The sky is not falling.
>> Anonymous
>>126032
Stunning rebuttal there. The "liberal" was a particuarly good point, and the way you articulated "SCAM" was a subtle yet concise rebuke to all counterpoints presented. Stunning argumentative skills here.
>> Anonymous
>>125983
The problem comes because the "ticking thing in the box" is also a thing that the third world desperately needs in order to drag themselves out of the whole mess they're in.

Us (relatively) rich 1st world people are at a stage where putting that ticking box in the bin and running off is practical. Billions of people in the world need to open that box, get that clock out and use it to power their economy.

Global warming is a fact. But it's due to increased solar activity, and it's patently arrogant to think the tiny smidgen of CO2 we produce through burning fossil fuels (which is utterly dwarfed by the outputs from volanos, decaying vegetation and the sea) is causing it.

It isn't. CO2 isn't even that effective a greenhouse gas compared to what really drives the planet's heat exchange systems--water vapour.

But that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that there are only very limited supplies of oil and gas, so whether fossil fuels cause global warming or not is almost irrelevant, as there's just not going to be much more of it anyway.

Now okay, there is a lot of coal, but the real problem there is that coal is filthy shit to burn. If these poor nations like africa and china start burning all their coal it's all the other crap that we need to be worrying about, like acid rain and smog, not the CO2. You really think they'll pay all the money it costs to burn coal cleanly?
>> Anonymous
ZOMG, Global warming iz

SERIOUS

FUCKING

BUSINESS
>> Anonymous
Guys in this board are DUMP. We dont have to worry about the bears. The biggest problem by melting the ice is that coast cities and islands will disapear and more water means more humidity = more heat + more diseases. Not to mention all the others aspects of the nature that will lose the balance and will ruin the modern life, if not all the human life. Seeing the bears suffering is just an omen.
>> Anonymous
The.Great.Global.Warming.Swindle.WS.PDTV.XviD-REMAX.avi

actual scientists
actual facts
>> Anonymous
>>126037
>>these poor nations like africa and china

>>nations like africa
>> Anonymous
POOR LIKE CHINA wtf
>> Anonymous
If china was to spend all the money it needed to on cleaning its pollution up, it would wipe out their entire growth. Or, put another way, chinas recent economic growth is a lie.

It's also one of the most corrupt nations on Earth, and has one of the most appalling records on human rights.

Plus 90% of china's population still lives in squalid fucking huts.

That's a 3rd world country.

(3rd world country==poor country for those not familiar with the maths)
>> Anonymous
africa & china's problem is their goverments.
africa's for being so fucking corrupt (imagine a medieval town where the king keeps the gold for himself while his own servants die of hunger: that's what's happening to africa) and china's problem is communism (YES IT IS)
>> Anonymous
>>126037
>>Us (relatively) rich 1st world people are at a stage where putting that ticking box in the bin and running off is practical. Billions of people in the world need to open that box, get that clock out and use it to power their economy.

See

>>125960
>>125965
>>125968

Having no food because of Climate change would suck for them too.

>>But it's due to increased solar activity, and it's patently arrogant to think the tiny smidgen of CO2 we produce through burning fossil fuels (which is utterly dwarfed by the outputs from volanos, decaying vegetation and the sea) is causing it.

No it isn't according to

>> Anonymous
>>Global warming is a fact. But it's due to increased solar activity, and it's patently arrogant to think the tiny smidgen of CO2 we produce through burning fossil fuels (which is utterly dwarfed by the outputs from volanos, decaying vegetation and the sea) is causing it.

I don't think you realize how large an effect humans have on the planet. Flees on trying to stop a dog from rolling over? Try a tumor in the
dogs stomach.

Our nuclear testing during the beginning of the cold war altered the fucking carbon cycle.

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Duffy.html

>>The concentration of 14C in atmospheric CO2, which had remained fairly constant for the previous thousand years, was doubled by those nuclear tests in less than 10 years.
>> Anonymous
>>126070

The USA is still a bigger polluter though, and cleaning its pollution up, wouldn't wipe out its growth. Pollution = wasted resources that are being thrown away rather than utilized to their full potential. American cars can't be sold in japan because they don't meet efficiency standards.

>>Plus 90% of china's population still lives in squalid fucking huts.

Source on this? Sounds like more bullshit to me.
>> Anonymous
>>126072

Mauritius would like to have a word with you.
>> Anonymous
>>125675
I guess they will soon kow what apples are
>> Anonymous
>>126110

Thread ended at this post. 126110 wins.
>> Anonymous
> and china's problem is communism (YES IT IS)

HAHAHAHa, besides of being a dictatorship, what's communist about China?
>> Anonymous
The Communist Party perhaps? The one that's holding a congress right now and just legalized private property ownership last week? The one that still runs ~60% of China's industry?

idiots...
>> Anonymous
in before yiff in hell
>> Anonymous
so what if we destroy the planet?
Then we'll at least all die and prevent further destruction. The planet will recover in time, or not. Who cares. What if we actually survive to start breeding on other planets. Then the universe is fucked.
>> Anonymous
>>126221
yeah, because humans are evil. yeah.
>> Anonymous
Global Warming (At least that suggested as being caused by mankind) is a fallacy. Go download the torrent 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

Global Warming is being used by certain goverments etc as another means to tax us.
>> Anonymous
>>126229
More like despite the size and complexity of our brains, we're pretty fucking stupid.
>> Anonymous
In after evangelics.
>> Anonymous
WTF IS THIS SHIT? AN ARGUMENT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING IN /hr/? THIS IS NOT /b/....TAKE THIS CRAP TO /b/.
And personally, who gives a damn if we're destroying the planet? We're all gonna die eventually anyway.
>> Global Warming
>>125675

You're welcome.
>> Anonymous
>>126322

The Joint science academies, US National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, Federal Climate Change Science Program
Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Association of State Climatologists, and the American Chemical Society all say otherwise.
>> Anonymous
>>126363

No they don't.
>> Anonymous
Wait... I thought we were Killing all the Whales! Thats what the environMENTALists told me in the 70's

Then we were destroying the rainforests which was supposed to destroy the planet.

Then, watch out -Overpopulation! Pollution! CFC's! Ozone Depletion!

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIIEEEEE!!!

Oh wait... All that other stuff was Bullshit, and so is Global Warming. Its just the latest end-of-the-world scare tactic which wont be talked about 10 years from now when they come up with something else even more absurd.
>> Anonymous
>>126419
bo back to /b/ idiot
>> rabidsquirrel1
To tell all of you that global warming isn't happening would be a lie. On the same note geologistshave discovered that *gasp* it's happened before humans even existed. I wish the democraps and retardicans would realize that environmental cycles have been going on for billions of years. The Earth is like all other planets in our galaxy. Our life cycle is based on our sun and when you look at the fact that our sun is slowly growing larger it puts us closer to the sun which causes the sun to warm us more. So there is only one solution to this dilemma. We must blow up the sun.
>> Anonymous
>>126486

Environmental cycles don't happen suddenly.
>> Anonymous
>>126494
Hey genius, guess what? Global warming isn't happening suddenly either.
>> Anonymous
>>126498

Hey, genius, guess what, glaciers dissapearing in decades is somewhat fast for an environmental cycle.
>> Anonymous
>>126486
>>that our sun is slowly growing larger

Bullshit. Source on this one?

>>126419
>>Then we were destroying the rainforests which was supposed to destroy the planet.
Then, watch out -Overpopulation! Pollution! CFC's! Ozone Depletion!

Some farmers in south america are still fucking up the rainforests. Overpopulation is going to start being a problem. All the other stuff they listed was right too.

>>126373

Yes they do.

>> rabidsquirrel1
>>126506
Yes our sun is growing larger it will take time but as the core of the sun begins to deplete itself the sun is begining to change from a yellow star to a red star our sun is at it's half life stage. NASA has confirmed that our sun has actually expanded 4 centimeters. You know what else is happening at the same time, the molten core of our earth is starting to rotate in a different direction causing our magnetic field to shift which is causing more radiation to enter the earth and cause *gasp again* more global warming. It's happened before and it will happen again. The problem we are facing is just a natural cycle. We humans are just rather ignorant about how long we've been here. think about it the dinosaurs are around 30 million years plus and we've been here 100,000 years. Do you think that cycles like this haven't happened before (the Ice Age) and been corrected by the earth before is pretty ignorant of us. The basis of all this is yes we need to develop cleaner fuels correct but to assume that we are the only cause of all this is pretty arrogant of us humans.
>> Anonymous
>>126511

Links that show the connection to Global warming or its bs.
>> Anonymous
>>126511

The

Joint science academies
US National Research Council
American Meteorological Society
Federal Climate Change Science Program
Geological Society of London.
Geological Society of America
American Association of State Climatologists
American Chemical Society

All disagree with you.
>> Anonymous
>>126500

However, it has happened before. Glaciers in Europe advanced and retreated VERY quickly during the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago.
>> Anonymous
>>126519

Claude Allègre, Robert C. Balling Jr., Chris de Freitas, David Deming, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, Sallie Baliunas and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Robert M. Carter, George V. Chilingar, Ian Clark, Lee C. Gerhard, William M. Gray, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Martin Keeley, David Legates, Marcel Leroux, Tim Patterson, Frederick Seitz, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Philip Stott, Henrik Svensmark, Jan Veizer, and others disagree with those findings.

Also, science isn't about consensus but about testable hyptotheses.
>> Anonymous
The ocean warms VERY SLOWLY too. Everyone is going on about how the ocean is warming up and causing the ice to melt and the levels to rise. But the sea does not fucking warmup overnight. It literally takes centuries to warm and cool. SO what we may be seeing is some event a couple of hundred years back having said warming event on the sea's. There is so much fud being put about by the media (Which has an entire new journalist dedicated to the enviroment who are always looking to make a 'big' story out of shit even if it means falsifying it or embellishing it) as well as government bodies playing on our fears to push their own agendas that there is no way I will believe what comes out of their asses.

Global warming may indeed be happening. But is it caused by mankind? I doubt it very much. People forget how much the sun influences the Earth. We are basically within it's solar atmosphere so to speak. Sun spots and other events all play their part in making our green planet warmup and cool down over millenia. Honestly you guys need to go watch that documentary. OK you do not have to believe every word of it. But it seems more feasable than much of the fud being spread by everyone else.
>> Anonymous
>>126528

Who are these people? Link?

Some guy < Scientific community

>>126529
>>. But is it caused by mankind? I doubt it very much.

Links backing you up?
>> Anonymous
>>126529
>>But is it caused by mankind? I doubt it very much.

Yeah, there's no way mankind could have an impact on the environment, right? Acid rain, that hole in the ozone, fucking up the carbon cycle we couldn't do any of that, right? Do you know how acidic the ocean's become? It's more serious then global warming.
>> Anonymous
>>126535

Seperate issues.
Pollution, ozone destruction etc. is something easily changed by mankind. Global climate, not even close to being within any sort or human control. Not to mention that there is no possible way of predicting climate since it's not bound to any trends. Stop assuming human beings have any sort of power over such massive changes.
>> Anonymous
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-4520665474899458831&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=global+warming+sw
indle&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4520665474899458831%26q%3Dglobal%2Bwar
ming%2Bswindle%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H20IOL8K2ig58MTZUQrW0zKPLau_rw
It's pretty good.
>> Anonymous
>>126541
>>Not to mention that there is no possible way of predicting climate since it's not bound to any trends. Stop assuming human beings have any sort of power over such massive changes.

If anything you're the one who is assuming things. We could brake off the ross ice shelf with enough work. What effect do think that would have on the planet?

Ever hear of the three Three Gorges Dam in China? The dam was so immense it created a 400 km lake. When the water was released, scientists detected a wobble in the Earth's rotation.

Us humans have a pretty great effect on the world around us.

And everyone in>>125924
is saying so too.
>> Anonymous
>>126541
>>Not to mention that there is no possible way of predicting climate since it's not bound to any trends.

Oh really?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
>> rabidsquirrel1
>>126517
>>126519
Watch the discovery or national geographic channel once in a while you might actually learn something
>> rabidsquirrel1
>>126558
I read the article and the end of it has the writer's own opinion about the way it will affect marine life. I find that very lol