Why are There people Who Think They Can Stop Climate Change?

I just posted several sources and excerpted what they had to say on the matter, and they disagree with your claim.



Are you trying to dispute that the Oceans have in storage most of the CO2 found on Earth?


www.agu.org...



Yes..a warming of the oceans releases more of the CO2 stored in the upper layers of the ocean floor... or that increase could also be the absorption of the oceans of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.



Not according to research, the sun's activity has increased recently more than in the past 8,000 years.

People dont want change, ie they want to stop global warming, because they are afraid. They fear change more than the event causing the change, they feel they will be naked and exposed without the illusion of modern society to cling too.

I do believe earth is in a cycle but hopefully after the next cycle we could do the following things the correct way from the start instead of going back to our old ways again. Could you imagine what the earth would be like if we were polluting the way we are now for 200 years or 1000 years.

Polluting the environment REALLY needs to stop at the corporate level in all aspects. If they only provided us clean products to use then we will have no choice but to use them. If the governments around the world made it a real law to stop using certain fuels, etc then things will change. If the U.N did what they were meant to do they could make it real clear to everyone if you don't spend X amount of dollars with us to clean the water you've polluted, change from fuel to electricity or whatever else, dedicate X amount of land for plant life, etc then our army will make sure you do. Personally those are the kinds of wars and causes I wouldn't mind us fighting for NOT oil and world domination.

We all know we have a boat load of technologies hidden away that will never see the day of light because it would cost their corporate buddies way to much money to implement.

The oil industry for instance. Make it a real 5 plan. Tell all the companies who provide us cars in north america you have 5 years to develop an electric car. At the same time mandate that in 5 years all gas stations begin phasing in electricity at the pumps and once the 5 years is up the station must be fully electric. DONE New car company sectors will create new jobs. This whole idea that no using oil will cause chaos to our economy is a load of you know what. That statement would only be true if there was nothing to replace the need for another energy source. INSTEAD of the government spending money on wars give that money as aid to companies to make the changes necessary to change their companies to other energy sources.

Of course there are a few things "they claim" that we really require oil for manufacturing wise for machines. Offer contests the way virgin has done to anyone who can do machine X without oil and give them 5 years from X date to do it. I'll put my life that we would get something that works or something close enough that will. All we need is for them to put their foot down and it would get done. Of course that would never happen, we would rather create wars instead.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by leafer]

What makes you think things will still be the same after this particular cycle though?

I was talking to a friend last night who is a meteorology major at college. She said that the earth is heating .1F degrees every ten years. I honestly don't see that as that much of a problem, infact it may be a good thing as in the 70's the earth was cooling and we were afraid of another ice age. I think all this Al Gore global warming stuff is BS. And I don't think theres anything we can do to stop the oceans from rising, but reducing pollution is still a good idea overall.

Sure you cannot prevent it by cutting emissions. But you can reverse it. Why don't you believe mankind can change earths climate?

Heres a few ways being developed as we speak;

- Solar Earth Shield; using small glass disks launched into space to deflect sun rays, therefor cooling the earth down. This is a very expensive way of combating the problem and probably isn't the best way.
news.bbc.co.uk...

- Fleets of yachts that spray seawater mist into the air and increase cloud cover that deflects sunlight away from the earth, thus letting less heat in.
news.bbc.co.uk...

- Launching Sulfur rockets into the stratosphere to form a Sulfur screen. Again deflecting solar rays.
news.bbc.co.uk...

- Artificially increasing sea plant life that converts co2 to oxygen.
news.bbc.co.uk...

- Artificial trees that mimic how normal trees work and decrease co2 in our atmosphere.
news.bbc.co.uk...


So yes, cutting emissions wont save us... but it will give us longer to find a solution. And that is why you assertions are damaging to life on Earth.

After looking at the evidence I really feel the earth itself will on its own reach a catastrophic event or a series of events in mother earths normal cycle. There is evidence of catastrophic events and ice ages following those in that past.



Also our sun is increasing in heat as well. The heat rise has also been detected on other planets as well.

Now to answer your question the government at the moment is suppressing the scientists about speaking about the reality of global warming. The question is why? What do they know that they don't want us to know?

Norwegian government is now making a seed bank, and I'm sure north america either already has one or is already in the process of making one. Again why?

When (I believe) the series of events were to happen the government will be the ones going to the underground bunkers to save themselves not us. Even if we were to plan well. Could you actually plan for 3 years or 5 years food and water wise? I doubt it. I'll bet my life they could last 50 years underground if they had to. Once they were to rise again to the surface their mentality will go right back where it is today. The NWO thinking is the world would be better off even the population is drastically reduced. With that type of thinking its a wonder to me that we've made it this far.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by leafer]

[edit on 26-2-2007 by leafer]

If the drops are small and predictable, and the evaporation rate is high, and it could rain like hell on any given day and overflow the bucket, no matter how much you try to stop it, who cares about the drops?

It has been my experience that most scientists agree that facts are broadly accepted and well supported theories. This leaves a great deal of room for differing hypotheses, speculation, thought experiment, and just ordinary belief or opinion. People have different opinions, and reach different conclusions. This is one of the social constants that make up the hallmarks of the human condition.

My personal feeling (which is just that; a personal, subjective, individual feeling which I seek to force upon no one and which I do not proclaim to be factually accurate) is that the cause of climate change - except insomuch as it might affect our ability to predict its magnitude and rate - is not as important as whether or not anything can be done to mitigate the potential loss of life, ecological damage, and other effects detrimental to human (and other) life on the planet, resulting from climate change. In other words, I feel that just because the possibility exists that we can do nothing to stop climate change, this does not necessarily mean that steps cannot be taken to ameliorate its impact on the lives of human beings (and other organisms) throughout the world.

One could just as easily ask the question, "Why are some of the people who are steadfast in their belief that nothing can be done to stop climate change disturbed by the fact that some people disagree with them?" Asking the question does not imply a lack of respect for those it references, and does not seek to invalidate their own questions, of course. It just occurs to me that given the choice between worrying about whether others might be wasting their time in a hopeless crusade to prevent climate change, and worrying about whether or not the impact of climate change can be negated or at least prepared for more effectively, I would choose the latter.

Again, these are simply my personal, subjective, unscientific views.

It should be easy, shouldnt it?

According to the UN all we have to do is stop raising cattle, stop burning anything, stop manufacturing anything, stop cutting plants and give all of our money to the developing nations for their extra Kyoto credits.

Im surprised we havent done all this years ago.

If we were just a bunch of vegan (or whatever its called when we only eat what falls from the trees but we dont pick it) socialists who didnt do anything besides plant trees we'd be home free.

But then we might grow so large in numbers our "emissions" would rise to the level of the cattles and we'd have to exterminate the most flatulant of us.

Roll on the apocolypse I say, at least I will have a nice tan for it.....

The world was happy before we got here, it will be happy when we're gone.

There is already a thread in existence on this topic. You can see it here:

Can we even stop global warming?

Interesting as Muaddib (the OP of this thread) tried so very hard to derail that thread in an attempt to avoid logical discussion. That thread asks whether or not man can stop or reverse the damage already caused. After being relentlessly attacked by Muaddib, he then tunrs around and starts his own thread about why people still believe the CAN affect the outcome - I find this to be very ignorant and deceptive. We cannot stop climate change, but we most definately can stop our affects on it and the damage we are causing. That debate turned into a back and forth argument about who's scientists were more credible, then ultimately about how we should start thinking about moving underground to avoid the effects of climate change....

It is great to have a contingency plan if all goes to crap, BUT dont you think it is a bit more important (and logical) to stop what we are doing??? That would be too inconvenient for Muaddib and his corporatist ideals.

By the way, Muaddib used to work on an oil rig - could explain his bias toward this topic.

You say that mankind cannot reverse the effects of climate change - this may be true, HOWEVER man most definately change HIS AFFECT on his environment, including his affect on climate change. This has been beaten into the ground in the above mentioned thread, interesting after he attacked it so much, he starts another thread, virtually the same.

Fact is, I really tried having logical discussion, however Muaddib has his own agenda to see to regardless of its affects on the rest of us. I suggest everyone check out the other thread to see the evidence of scientists that are being "silenced" as Muaddib believes. Most of these people have been debunked by their own peers. The worlds majority of climate experts and scientists dont agree with the findings of people who are against the idea of man made (or man altered) global warming.

There are two things that are truths and are being confused in this debate overall:

1) Climate change is a natural process, one that mankind does not cause.

2) Man kind can AFFECT the natural climate change, even derail it from what it is supposed to be and cause far greater damage as a result of our actions.

It is true that the Earth has undergone many climate changes in its brief history, and these aren't changes that can/should be stopped by the human race.

It is also true that our species should be held accountable for the amount of pollution we put back into the Earth, be it the ground, atmosphere, water, etc. These various (and many) forms of pollution did not create climate change, but they may very well have something to do with the climage changes we may/may not be experiencing today or will be experiencing in the near future.

My point is that it's absurd to say we are not to blame for our current problems because of all the other times the Earth has changed. I do not care if earth experienced a mini-ice age in the 1800's, or that we were in a full-fledged ice age some 10,000 years ago. I do care that we are pumping countless tons of chemicals into the atmosphere, and pretending that isn't going to make a difference.

Personally, i do not believe humanity is the CAUSE of global warming. I do, however, believe it is our responsibility to start doing things a bit differently so we don't eventually cause an "unscheduled" climate change.

I thought I remember a thread here that talked about the whole solar system going through a warming trend?

Found it!Here. It also was authored by Muaddib.

If this phenomenon can be found to occur on Mars, where there is no human X factor, and at the same rate, then wouldn't this point to mankind having little if no ability to coerce the climate to increase in temperature? I'm not saying this has been proven or anything like that. ( I don't know anything about the subject, just remember the reference. )

I would have to say that I agree what we are doing is not helping the situation. I just don't know if we've successfully accomplished this, and to what extent.

2PacSade-

well actually it can be disastrous, the ice age was caused by a 7 degree difference.





i dont buy the global warming agenda, particularly the part where it puts blame squarely on human activity. and i think its some hippie-nazi agenda, any one see demolition man??? i want to be an edgar freindly, so back off with your rules.

first they pass legislation on corporate, to help the enviroment, then theyll pass legislation on the people in name of the enviroment. its just another angle of control, and they will exploit it....



tho i will say pollution is dangerous, if thats all they wanted to clean up thats fine, but my gut tells me some other issues are in their sights aswell.




[edit on 26/2/07 by Glyph_D]

I, like most others I think, don’t have a clue who is right about the cause(s) of global warming. I currently believe it is a mixed bag. We may be contributing to mix but I don’t think we have any control over the main causes, which are natural and beyond our control.
Here are some interesting articles:









In the February 2007 edition of “Scientific American” an article by Frank Keppler and Thomas Rockmann titled “Methane Plants and Climate Change” discusses their startling finding that “living vegetation produces the greenhouse gas methane”. It was previously thought “that only microbes that thrive without oxygen (anaerobic bacteria) can manufacture this gas”. In the article they mention; “We collected 30 different kinds of tree leaves and grasses. To our amazement all of the various kinds of leaves and plant litter produced methane.”

The article claims the following statistics for methane emissions –

Preindustrial production was 233 million metric tons per year.
Wetlands – 168
Biomass burning – 20
Termites – 20
Ocean – 15
Hydrates – 10

Today production is 600 million metric tons per year.
Wetlands – 225
Ruminants – 115
Energy production – 110
Landfills – 40
Waste treatment – 25
Biomass burning – 40
Termites – 20
Ocean – 15
Hydrates – 10

It is interesting they mention no contribution from Ruminants in the Preindustrial numbers? The Bison herds in North America were so huge, single herds were described as taking days to pass. The African Savannas were home to massive herds of Ruminants. I also find it odd that even though the wetlands are shrinking dramatically that methane production from that source has increased by 75%?

We all want clean air and we can do better but I’m not ready to agree with the alarmists and those that have abandoned true science for politics. Science and Politics do not mix.

In answer to can we stop Global Warming? All we can do is lessen our contribution to it. It is clear that we do not at this time understand all of its causes and to place the blame solely on mankind is an intellectual lie and they know it. At this point in history, no honest person can say, I know the true cause(s) of Global Warming. We can only say we know what some of the contributing factors are and that no one, no matter how many outlandish claims they make, knows the entire answer. Anyone who claims they do have all the answers is disingenuous and should be ignored. They are just pushing a political agenda or are looking for notoriety by parroting an opinion they think will get them published or on the boob tube. I think many are just spreading panic to sell the multitude of books showing up on the shelves almost daily. Until politics is separated completely from scientific studies we might as well be back in the dark ages.


[edit on 2/26/2007 by Blaine91555]

I agree with maudibb on this one. Its all a natural occurrence that happens every few thousand years. I watched a show about this a while back. They are saying that the earths magnetic field is weakening, the reason behind it weakening is because the earths magnetic field is starting to reverse. So some day your compass will point to south rather then north. Its a natural occurrence.. Its happened before in the past with the same still holding true today.

Are you truly prepared to say, without a shadow of a doubt that mankind is not at all contributing to this? As I have argured countless times and gotten nowhere with others in here, there are other things that factor into the damage we have caused other than just our emmissions. I argured with Muaddib in another thread about dumping toxins into the oceans creating "dead zones" where nothing lives - he said that this didn't contribute to gw or climate change. I say it does. Ocean currents are the biggest engine in regard to climate and weather. We screw with those too much, and we could royally screw ourselves.

your right logan. Mankind sure isnt helping the cause. But it is true that alot of it is a natural cycle that happens every few thousand years. And since we were not around keeping records 3-5,000 years ago this is completely new to us. Its not the end of the world. This sorta thing happens.


And your completely right about the ocean currents having a huge impact on our environment changing the course of weather.





[edit on 052828p://1402pm by semperfoo]

The natural cycle isn't what I am worried about. I am worried that we may make a natural cycle "unnatural" by our actions. I dont believe we should blame man for all of the climate change, only what effect we are having on it. I also believe once we fully understand what our role is, that we should take steps to reverse it - meaning reverse our role in it - if not too late....