I was thinking - I think if global warming turns out to be relatively mind, you know. like only 1 to 3 celsius rise in the next 100 years, we'll probably generally be okay, but a 5-10C rise would be a doomsday scenario imo. There's only about a 15 (Fahrenheit!) degree difference in average temperature between Quebec and the Deep South. There's no way ecosystems could survive a shift that big. A shift in which Montreal is shifted to a Floridian climate.

A rise in temperature won't be as bad as the sudden drop afterwards. The natural state of our planet is what we refer to as an "Ice Age." We've been living in a warm period for the past 10-15 thousand years, with a few miniature ice ages here and there, which is normal. The problem is; the average warm period last for 10-20 thousand years, per 80-90 thousand years of ice age, and we're at the tail end of this warming time.

The question I have is; if human pollution affects climate change (some say it does, others say it doesn't), will these changes affect the warm period, making it longer or shorter?

Whether global warming is natural or manmade makes no nevermind. The fact is, the weather does change. Ice Ages do happen.

We've been living in a luxurious period, weather-wise. Eventually, and likely soon, we're gonna have to make some interesting decisions in the subject of how we plan to survive. During the last Ice Age, the ice and snow were deep enough to bury the Empire State Building. Think about that for a minute. Now imagine 6 billion people moving toward the equator to surivive. That will be our reality.

^Look, I hate Al Gore as much as the next person, but the quality of the messenger is not always proportional to the truth of the message.

If the overall temperature gauge jumped 10 degrees in either direction, we would be fighting through the biggest challenge of our lives. End of the world ? No. Not even close. But it would be the end of our current societies as we know them.

Drastic temperature changes have happened in as little as a couple of decades in the past... if the neanderthals managed to survive through it, so can we.

As a side note: Personally, I'll take global warming over global cooling any day.

Originally posted by lampsalot
^Look, I hate Al Gore as much as the next person, but the quality of the messenger is not always proportional to the truth of the message.

In this case both are bad. Al Gore doesn't really know anything about Global Warming. He's just a politician with a political message. the fact (and it is a fact) that he got his graph backwards ought to tell you something. What actually happened is that the refinements in the samples from which his graph is derived changed over the years and became more specific, which revealed the mistake. In other words, I don't think he made the mistake on purpose. But the fact is he won't admit that it is wrong and refuses any debates on the subject.

The entire Global Warming issue is based on a pack of lies. If you'll read the book I cited above you will begin to see how and why this stuff happened. The data on which historical global warming is based is extremely thin, in some cases amounting to a few suspect trees.

I'll give you another example. Remember all the hype on "Hide the decline"? Here's what happened:

The "decline" refers to a line on a graph that shows several different lines, all showing increased temperatures--except one. This single line referenced tree ring data. The idea is that you can "tell" past climate by looking at the thickness of tree ring data. To "aithenticate" this method scientists measured tree ring data during years when they also had collected temperature readings using technical means, with gauges. If the tree ring data correlated with the "real world" temperature gauge data, that method could be said to be "authenticated" and valid to use.

First of all, this is quite simplistic. Thick tree rings can be caused by a number of factors, including moisture--not just temperature. Also, "heating degree days" can be spread out over time rather than concentrated during a single period, so there are some inherent problems with using tree ring data in the first place. So what these guys have done is extrapolate backwards over time and claim that 1,000 years ago, tree rings behaved the same way, therefore global warming.

But wait! Remember that "hidden decline." The "decline" was in tree ring data that showed the temperature DECREASING when everything else, including instrumentation, said the temperature was INCREASING. The tree ring data was not correlating with reality. If the tree ring data is wrong now, you can't really use it for 1,000 years ago. And that's exactly what happened. If they showed the tree ring data declining when other measurements were increasing, how could this be explained?

Well, it couldn't, so they hid it in the graph because it would be too embarrassing to explain. That's just one of many different manipulations that has gone on to keep up this fiction that global warming is real. Read the Climategate emails and you can see this happen again and again and again. The data is very poor to begin with and has also been manipulated.

Here we are on a conspiracy site where we are called disinfomration agents if we dare to question chemtrails, 9/11, alien babies, and all manner of NWO TPTB Illuminati nonsense, and here's a real conspiracy right in front of you with ample evidence to prove it, and what does ATS say?

Nah! Global warming is real!

Jesus F. Christ.

a 10-15 degree increase would destroy humanity! The amount of ice that would melt would put the costal cities under water, as well as change our weather patterns.