Global Warming: Myth No More

[Back]

An article (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050613/1a_cover13.art.htm) taken from USA Today that explains how corporations, politicians and religious groups are all now finally accepting the truth about global warming and of course disagree about how to stop it.

Regardless, this good news, by the way.

[Back]

Another thing that occured to me now that I've been able to absord this information... WTF do religious organization have to do or say about anything that involves science? I mean, when it comes to science, they aren't the biggest advocates. (Darwin, stem-cell research, flat earth, etc.) Odd that USA Today would include them in the article. Or is it?

seems nobody wants to take your bait today backlash

[Sean of the Thread]

NEWS FLASH... Global warming has never been a myth. It is a pattern that our planet has been in for BILLIONS OF YEARS. Geological records PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that Florida for instance has been in an under/above water cycle every 10,000 years or so. Governments are to pussy to take a stance because to admit that this pattern of warmth and cooling has happened for BILLIONS of years would go against the religious belief that the world was only recently created. The whole situation is a complete joke. Blame whoever or whatever you want for it but it is going to happen no matter what we do. Then it will happen again... and again.. and again..

[Gan]

Been there, discussed that.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=12545&page=4


:deadhorse:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Governments are to pussy to take a stance because to admit that this pattern of warmth and cooling has happened for BILLIONS of years would go against the religious belief that the world was only recently created. That makes it easier to say it doesn't exist entirely. That is a joke in itself.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Xyelin
Governments are to pussy to take a stance because to admit that this pattern of warmth and cooling has happened for BILLIONS of years would go against the religious belief that the world was only recently created.

You'd think all the dinosaur bones would have set them straight...

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Been there, discussed that.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=12545&page=4


:deadhorse:

And rather than beat an old thread, I created this one with up-to-date information. Namely, a corporate media source reporting on the acceptance of the issue as very real and not some crazy left-wing-liberal-tree-hugger-and-so-on bullshit.

They have been reporting the same thing for years Backlash, nothing new.

[Doyle Hargraves]

carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas

I really have no clue what I'm talking about here, but at the risk of sounding like a hippie, maybe this apparent surplus of carbon dioxide can be at least somewhat attributed to all the forests/trees/plantlife that's being wiped out at such a fast pace in favor of building neighborhoods, shopping malls, etc., since carbon dioxide is to plants what oxygen is to animals...I think.

[Skeeter]

I think it's from all of the idiots still allowed to breathe.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Skeeter
I think it's from all of the idiots still allowed to breathe.

:lol:

Hrm, breathing licenses. Good idea. So long as I'm the one who decides who gets them :)

Jorddyn

[Fengus]

I'm pretty sure no one gives a rats ass. Foremost this is going to be another neat sticker on your AC and cars so some buisnesses can make a little bit of profit selling you things you don't really need or understand.

Its the height of ego that humans even believe they've had any impact on the earth's life cycle, we're a mote of dust on a pinhead watching events unfold and claiming credit. Laughable.


You don't even need to go back a billion years, 10,000 is enough to see evidence of the end of the last ice age. And from that any one with half a brain can wonder what changed to make the ice go away.

[4a6c1]

Now it will be another 50 years before they decide what to do about it.

:up:

[longshot]

I think this thread, as a whole, is rather interesting.

Backlash is obvoiusly very attuned and sensitive to environmental issues that affect the planet.

Other posters here see him as repeating the same thing that has been said a million times before... like the boy who cried wolf.

Maybe the one day, the wolf will come? Who really knows for certain?

But one thing is for certain, and that is that people will begin to tune out the boy who continues to cry wolf.

This is not a knock on you Backlash, but it's just the reality of how people see the global warming issue. I'm not saying you're right or wrong... but in some small way, this thread is a perfect microcosm of current attitudes toward global warming.

[Gan]

I dont think its that people dont care about global warming. I think people are tired of the alarmest rhetoric that is spewed blaming it ALL on pollution of the industrialized world.

I do care about pollution, I do make sure the vehicles I own are up to date emission wise and not unofficial mosquito foggers running on 1/3 of their cylinders. But as many folks have agreed, and as I still stand firm. Global warming is not solely caused by pollution. Yes pollution is a contributing factor, but I dont buy off that its the root cause.

Does this mean I dont think industries should be regulated and emissions controlled? No. They do need regulation and emissions do need controlled. Acid rain sucks and I like the air I breathe to be clean.

I just refuse to be a chicken little and run around screaming "The sky is falling!"

[Atlanteax]

What I find interesting, which may have been documentated...

Is since the limitator to plant growth is carbon dioxide (if you consider that water and sunlight are plentiful), wouldn't more carbon dioxide (to an extent) be beneficial to plant growth?

I'm under the impression that it seems that plants grow a lot bigger/faster now, than they did 10 years ago.

.

Nevermind that to the extent that Mankind distorts it, Earth's ecosystems are pretty much self-regulating. (ie, we have gone from ice age to "heat wave" and back ... where plant life ability to absorb carbon monoxide affected the climinate change).

[Fengus]

Yes it stands to reason that plants will benefit from higher co2, but not the plants you care about because the sea level will rise dramatically, the plants that will most benefit will be algaes. And coincidentally these are also the plants that will fix co2 levels, over time.

Actually, we arn't losing trees. With our preservation and reforesting technologies there are currently more trees now then there were before the industrial revolution (in the United States).

- Arkans

[Gan]

Think of all the trees we can plant on the melting ice-caps.

:whistle:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Arkans
Actually, we arn't losing trees. With our preservation and reforesting technologies there are currently more trees now then there were before the industrial revolution (in the United States).

- Arkans

Source? Or are you just stating your assumption?

Considering a section the size of Texas was cleared (and not replanted) from the Brazilian portion of the rain forest between 78 - 93, I find it very hard to believe that there are more trees now than there were during the industrial revolution. And that's just one example of deforestation that hasn't been rectified.

Deforestation and assumptions aside, our biggest uncontrollable threat is actually the moon.

[Fengus]

Thats likely misinformation, right before the industrial revolution was no doubt the height of deforestation in the US. But nevermind that telescoped view, deforestation is concerning globally, not just in our country.

[Tsa`ah]

I just want to know what sources have claimed that we have more trees now.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Arkans
(in the United States).
Considering a section the size of Texas was cleared (and not replanted) from the Brazilian portion of the rain forest:oops:

And all we need to take care of the moon is for Piccolo to get off his ass.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Xyelin
Governments are to pussy to take a stance because to admit that this pattern of warmth and cooling has happened for BILLIONS of years would go against the religious belief that the world was only recently created.

You'd think all the dinosaur bones would have set them straight...

BACK THEN A DAY WAS MILLIONS OF YEARS STOOPID. GOD YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Another thing that occured to me now that I've been able to absord this information... WTF do religious organization have to do or say about anything that involves science? I mean, when it comes to science, they aren't the biggest advocates. (Darwin, stem-cell research, flat earth, etc.) Odd that USA Today would include them in the article. Or is it?

What I find odd is someone who is SO outspoken about the horrors of global warming still drives a gas powered car, still uses a gas powered lawn mower, uses an old air conditioner, etc...

I know if I were that outspoken about something.. I would certainly do anything and everything in my power to not contribute to the "problem".

But that's me I guess........

[Artha]

You'd think all the dinosaur bones would have set them straight...
Uh, hello. Reality calling Wezas. Reality calling Wezas.

They were placed there by God to test our faith. Duh.

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
I just want to know what sources have claimed that we have more trees now.

I was interested in the premise of your question - that trees (or more precisely the biomass of living trees) was a knowable quantity.

So I looked around a bit.

I've been estimating for a living for quite a few years now. I'm always skeptical of large scale estimates of things like the global biomass of wood. In looking at the UN FAO site, they collect data by asking each country for forestry data and then they compile and analyze the results. Draw your own conclusion about how accurate you think this method is.

I found this site:

http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/df3.html

which has a lot of data. I spot checked the sourcing and didn't find any errors. I didn't read the authors papers so I don't know what his opinion is on environmental questions (but I do plan to go back and read some of his essays as he seems to have assembled quite a bit of information).

I know this doesn't answer your question, but I had fun looking around.

C/Valth

It's the middle of June. It's fucking 50 degrees today in Massachusetts. Where is your global warming now?

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

It was 100 yesterday. They cooled it down so I could play softball. :duh:

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
What I find odd is someone who is SO outspoken about the horrors of global warming still drives a gas powered car, still uses a gas powered lawn mower, uses an old air conditioner, etc...

I don’t know who it is you think you know those things about, but its not me.

I don’t mind so much that you exaggerate my concern into hysteria, but your consistent manufacture of bogus claims presented as fact is pretty sad.

As Ganalon pointed out, we had a discussion on this not that long ago. This thread was meant to imply that those who do not believe the countless studies from around the globe that have proven there indeed is such a thing as global warming and that humans are partially responsible, are in fact living in a stone age of their own ignorance.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
What I find odd is someone who is SO outspoken about the horrors of global warming still drives a gas powered car, still uses a gas powered lawn mower, uses an old air conditioner, etc...

I don’t know who it is you think you know those things about, but its not me.

I don’t mind so much that you exaggerate my concern into hysteria, but your consistent manufacture of bogus claims presented as fact is pretty sad.

As Ganalon pointed out, we had a discussion on this not that long ago. This thread was meant to imply that those who do not believe the countless studies from around the globe that have proven there indeed is such a thing as global warming and that humans are partially responsible, are in fact living in a stone age of their own ignorance.

There is one individual on this message board that constantly brings up global warming as a big concern. That is you.

Are you now claiming that you do not use any fossil fuels (Which is claimed to be the biggest culprit of global warming) in your daily life?

So which of my bogus claims are now fiction? You don't drive a car? You don't have your lawn mowed by a gas powered lawnmower? Your home is not powered by electricity that is generated through the use of fossil fuels?

As pointed out in the other numberous posts initiated by you on this subject.. I see you as a hypocrite... bitching and moaning about the world's woes, while contributing right to them.

[Back]

I’ve stated how I do my part but you always ignore it. Or forget, I don’t know which.

How is it you know I have a lawnmower when I live on the 4th floor of a condo? You don’t because I don’t own one. I drive subcompact 4cyl car at most 2-3 times a week. My lights are off when I’m not at home and I’ve turned on the AC two or three times so far this year. I recycle and take mass transit. Yadda yadda. I have concern so I do what I can to minimize my impact.

According to you having concern for the enviroment means you have to live in the woods. Thats not realistic.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
I’ve stated how I do my part but you always ignore it. Or forget, I don’t know which.

How is it you know I have a lawnmower when I live on the 4th floor of a condo? You don’t because I don’t own one. I drive subcompact 4cyl car at most 2-3 times a week. My lights are off when I’m not at home and I’ve turned on the AC two or three times so far this year. I recycle and take mass transit. Yadda yadda. I have concern so I do what I can to minimize my impact.

According to you having concern for the enviroment means you have to live in the woods. Thats not realistic.

Actually.. I don't remember you stating this before. My apologies.

[Nieninque]

If I ever get to buy a house, I want it to be in the woods and as self sufficient as is possible...i.e solar power etc.

Partly because it is environmentally responsible.
Partly because I hate that some fucker is getting rich out of the electricity we are using.

[Hulkein]

I do declare, those who bring us electricity and fossil fuels are of good character and deserve every penny.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/dawkins/rockefeller-preview.jpg

[Edited on 6-16-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Costs a hell of a lot to get a decent solar setup running, but they can be pretty swank after.