It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Your thoughts on Global warming needed.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Bananarama
It's funny how the believers in GW call it a gray area where we still need to do more research, whereas people who say GW isn't real (or not as important as Al Gore would have you think) present us facts and their own years in the works research.

It's like an article I read about Microwaves and Cancer. It's really easy for a short paragraph to scare you away from microwaves, but hard for a long essay to tell you why Microwave ovens aren't going to cause Cancer.

No... nobody has said that. It's not a gray area, the vast vast vast majority of the science supports anthropogenic global-warming as a solid reality. There are ZERO peer-reviewed studies which contradict or disagree with global warming, also a recent study showed that 97% of Climatologists (the people who actually study this issue) agree that global warming is real, man-made, and a big problem.

The whole microwave thing is a poorly-supported, pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory which resembles your GW denial FAR MORE than it does AGW.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by reassor
do humans have influence on climate change? NO - our co2 (wich is good gas) emissions are very small compared to natural ones (water vapor , volcanos etc.)

do humans have impact on ENVIROMENT? YES - deforestation , over-hunting , over-fishing etc. these are the things we should focus on not the stupid ideas about co2 or methane from farting ... its just silly to belive that this taxation would change something.

as for global warming as an marketing tool well look for your self .. green this green that

its like in avatar movie - its not that humans came and build a factory wich made a "global warming" on pandora its the fact they rip the planet apart w/o any consideration about its natural life.

simmilar is here on earth.
if we cut down all trees then well we will all sufficate in time.
Imagine that trees were having a cop15 of thier own lol and trying to tax oxygen emissions becose its "poison" its that simple.

sorry for wall of text but i just cant stand how people get fooled like this.

Do humans have influence on climate change? YES. CO2 is neither good nor bad, it is what it is, which includes acting as a 3-atom greenhouse gas. Human emissions are ENORMOUS compared to volcanoes. Your facts are actually backwards, humans emit over 100 times greater greenhouse gases than volcanoes annually. And volcanoes actually cool the Earth (via sulphur emissions) more than warm it. This is well known. Water vapor is very transient and rapidly decays in the atmosphere. It also doesn't saturate the entire atmosphere evenly, while CO2 more/less does. CO2 lingers in our atmosphere far far longer than water vapor and the amount we've increased it is absolutely enough to account for the warming we've seen. Water vapor only contributes 40-50% of the greenhouse effect on this planet. If all the CO2 were removed from our atmosphere, the planet would be 60 degrees cooler. That's QUITE an impact.

Do humans have an impact on environment? You're right, we do. And all the points you brought up are quite valid and must be addressed as environmental problems. But just because there are other important environmental problems doesn't mean global warming is no longer one. In fact, global warming presents a bigger problem than any of those issues, it presents a massive GLOBAL problem that isn't just localized like over-hunting or deforestation. Though deforestation certainly worsens global warming. We have to focus on ALL of the issues. Methane from cattle farts is actually a real emission... not the most serious one we face, but it's real and contributes in its own way to global warming. Especially since methane is many times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Global warming as a marketing tool - Well DUH. What did you think was gonna happen? Our economy thrives on exploiting good/bad things to its own profitable ends. Just because it's being used by polluter corporations to greenwash themselves, doesn't mean the whole movement is BS. The opposite is true. Environmentalists HATE how the green movement is being overly commercialized and exploited by non eco-friendly businesses to promote themselves as falsely eco-friendly. So we actually all agree on that.

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by hangedman13
I've got one for you NoHierarchy... Why then during the 1940's we didn't have global warming? Industry was at it's strongest and safety measures were not on the plate? The WWII industrial boom should have really hit the enviroment, yet the evidence doesn't exist. Ohh I got it cuz global warming was not invented yet!

This link should provide enough information for you on that whole 1940 thing...

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Copperflower
Wow, what a "lively" debate.

I have actually been pondering this issue lately, as have many of us, of course, and realized a couple of things that made me go "hmmm." Please comment if you have relevant information. It's hard to find reputable science these days, so these things have the benefit of not needing scientific verification, as they refer to easily-observed or commonplace occurrences.

A: Wouldn't loads of fresh water suddenly (over a period of years or decades) infusing the water system of the world help to dilute many toxins we already know are in the water we drink? Plus we don't have to pay a dime, since it's already happening and no one can stop it.

B: Galapagos. Arctic penguins live there, and quite happily. Polar bears live in zoos far from Arctic regions. Why would they be in so much danger if there were changes in the length of the warm season in Arctic regions? There would seem to be an increased population in the works, at least at first. The warmer seasons would continue in the warming trend, correct? My point is that the Tropics are not bereft of life, even life originating in colder climates. Are there other kinds of dangers to them? Yes. Different diseases, insects, fungi? Yes. But are these Arctic natives thriving? Definitely.

C. Large forests being destroyed by warm weather insects. Wouldn't different trees need to be planted in anticipation of the changing climate? Wouldn't the plants change anyway to suit these conditions? And couldn't we determine and plant large forests of better-suited trees during this die-off? Tougher plants and trees would help the land adapt, and we wouldn't have to lose huge forests before we started over.

Thoughts or info on any of this?

A: Those loads of fresh water would mostly dilute the salty oceans (to a small extent, not large enough to be a benefit to humans). This would actually provide us LESS fresh water for drinking since, right now, most fresh water is locked up/frozen in the polar caps. The more they melt, the less fresh water there is (as it melts into the salty oceans and becomes salty itself). Not good.

B: The Galapagos, as Darwin himself famously noted, is a cornucopia of evolutionary diversity and uniqueness. You would have to study the penguins for yourself to know why they are able to live there like they do, however, I'm sure their ancestor(s) must have ended up there at some point, perhaps on an iceberg, and eventually evolved to adapt to their geography. The unfit penguins died off, while the fit ones survived to exist in a warmer climate. Here, check this out if you wanna learn more:
Polar bears rely upon ice floes to live/hunt/travel naturally in the wild. When kept in zoos, they're no longer wild, but cared for by humans and very carefully maintained in their own micro-environments. Even then, they're more/less miserable. However, many arctic/antarctic species stand to suffer from the melting of polar caps in such a rapid time. They've adapted to the cold climate, regular snowfall, ice-buildup, and the seasonal wax/wane of ice-bergs. When this system is rapidly shut down, it's going to have quite a negative impact on local species. I don't think you'd see many arctic species thriving for too long after such a rapid shock to their ecosystems.
More info:

C: Humans planning and planting entirely new forests/rainforests would be a highly undesirable necessity. This would be a messy, worst-case-scenario type of deal. We don't want forests to get that bad, we really don't. It's not a simple matter of humans just planting the right trees and everything will work out ok, it's a much larger, more powerful problem than simply the "wrong" trees in the forest. It's highly unlikely that most trees would adapt in time.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in