Global Warming

[Liverpool]

Just remember which 'team' you are on in this debate.

Let me know in 2 million years who wins.... :hihi

 

[Disco08]

Was it that hard to recognise that ts meant revenue when he said profit? He said they put what they made into funding their activites and campaigns. Sounds like a non-profit organisation to me.

Also, you like to harp on about how small the growth in temperature has been, but have you taken notice of the effects it's had? They don't seem so minor to me.

 

[Liverpool]

Only reason I mentioned George was given you and him seem political photocopies, its a sign that even global warming sceptics are changing their position.

Tiger74,

I don't see myself as a "global warming sceptic", as to me, they are people who do not believe the Earth is warming up at all.

I just disagree with the idea that something like this is purely a human race's fault, when we have countless examples of massive changes to the earth, being it climate, geography, or positioning, etc...over the entire history of this planet, where no human intervention was the reason for it happening.
They all happened naturally, whether it be the start of the Ice Age, the end of the Ice Age, the continental drift of whole continents, or the increase in the sun's radiance.
I'm not denying humans haven't played SOME part in the temperature rise, but where I seem to disagree with many of you, is that I think Mother Nature's role is being very much undervalued, and our involvement being very much overstated.

Was it that hard to recognise that ts meant revenue when he said profit? He said they put what they made into funding their activites and campaigns. Sounds like a non-profit organisation to me.
Also, you like to harp on about how small the growth in temperature has been, but have you taken notice of the effects it's had? They don't seem so minor to me.

Disco,
I can only go by the words he used, and he said "profits".....and I think he was spot on! :clap

Greenpeace vies for the action - and bags the profits

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1975368,00.html

Interesting.

 

[Disco08]

Typically black and white of you.

Did you miss the second part of my post (even though you qouted it)?

 

[Tiger74]

I'm not denying humans haven't played SOME part in the temperature rise, but where I seem to disagree with many of you, is that I think Mother Nature's role is being very much undervalued, and our involvement being very much overstated.

Then why is your solution to still stare at the patient and say "Im not giving you any medicine until I am 100% certain what is wrong"? Even if our actions only minimize the impact, it is better than doing SFA

 

[Liverpool]

Then why is your solution to still stare at the patient and say "Im not giving you any medicine until I am 100% certain what is wrong"? Even if our actions only minimize the impact, it is better than doing SFA

By all means, continue putting your paper/bottles in your yellow bin.....re-use the laundry water.....cycle to work instead of drive....I'm not telling people to stop doing what they want to do, to make their immediate community look better and to prolong the life of trees or water, for example.
They are all great initiatives for everyone's area.

However, in the 'big picture' scenario, which is the future of the entire planet in a million years, I think the earth has bigger forces at play which will determine our destiny, and not things that are in our control.

Human intervention, such as lesseing Greenhouse gases/emissions, etc might prolong things, and may slow the temperature rise somewhat, but if nature has made its mind up that eventually we'll go through a certain Age, then me cycling to work will not make one iota of difference.

 

[Liverpool]

Also, you like to harp on about how small the growth in temperature has been, but have you taken notice of the effects it's had? They don't seem so minor to me.

Disco,
I'll ask you a question now:
Has anyone thought that maybe if the Earth did warm by 0.5 of a degree over the next 100 years, that there might be some benefits to this?

 

[Tiger74]

so Liv, what DONT you want us to do?

You seem to have your knickers in a knot on this one, and Im beginning to suspect its more about being the token hard right "I disagree with all you pinko leftie commies" than anything else

You have knocked us all, whats your plan for the next 100 years?

 

[Disco08]

Disco,
I'll ask you a question now:
Has anyone thought that maybe if the Earth did warm by 0.5 of a degree over the next 100 years, that there might be some benefits to this?

Given all the negative effects GW has already caused, I doubt it.

Maybe the people that live 8m above sea level would be happy about having waterfront property all of a sudden.

Did you want to answer my question at some point?

 

[Tiger74]

Also, you like to harp on about how small the growth in temperature has been, but have you taken notice of the effects it's had? They don't seem so minor to me.

Disco,
I'll ask you a question now:
Has anyone thought that maybe if the Earth did warm by 0.5 of a degree over the next 100 years, that there might be some benefits to this?

Being in the food industry, our concern is only slightly about temp, more about changing weather patterns caused by the change. concerns are that even minor temp changes will result in currently temperate regions moving closer to semi-arid

 

[Disco08]

Hurricanes and Cyclones aren't all that good for agriculture either are they?

 

[Liverpool]

so Liv, what DONT you want us to do?
You seem to have your knickers in a knot on this one, and Im beginning to suspect its more about being the token hard right "I disagree with all you pinko leftie commies" than anything else
You have knocked us all, whats your plan for the next 100 years?

Not at all Tiger74.
Actually, myself and the others on here aren't too far different......we all recognise that the Earth is warming...the only difference is that they deem humans as the main culprits, whereas I think its Mother Nature.

As for remedies to the situation, we should continue what we are doing.....if we can save water, or save power, or save energy...then that can only be good.
If recycling and energy-saving lower-emission ways of doing things are exercised, then great.

Where myself and the others differ again, is that in the short-term I think 'green' initiatives are great for everyone and their communities, however in the loooooong-term (millions of years), it will lead to the same conclusion if we hadn't done a bloody thing.
The others, because they feel human intervention is the cause for the global warming phenomena, must also believe that changing our ways will reverse what the climate is doing. That is a very bold idea.

 

[Tiger74]

so Liv, what DONT you want us to do?
You seem to have your knickers in a knot on this one, and Im beginning to suspect its more about being the token hard right "I disagree with all you pinko leftie commies" than anything else
You have knocked us all, whats your plan for the next 100 years?

Not at all Tiger74.
Actually, myself and the others on here aren't too far different......we all recognise that the Earth is warming...the only difference is that they deem humans as the main culprits, whereas I think its Mother Nature.

As for remedies to the situation, we should continue what we are doing.....if we can save water, or save power, or save energy...then that can only be good.
If recycling and energy-saving lower-emission ways of doing things are exercised, then great.

Where myself and the others differ again, is that in the short-term I think 'green' initiatives are great for everyone and their communities, however in the loooooong-term (millions of years), it will lead to the same conclusion if we hadn't done a bloody thing.
The others, because they feel human intervention is the cause for the global warming phenomena, must also believe that changing our ways will reverse what the climate is doing. That is a very bold idea.

You missed my point.

I know we all generally agree.

We however are not talking about the next million years, we are only talking about the next 100.

What dont you want done? What actions/remedies do you not want introduced that have fired you up as much as this on an issue where we all generally agree?

If there are none, Im not sure what the last few pages of debate have been about

 

[Disco08]

At the very least lowering emissions will provide an expedient answer to the problem. What happens to the climate once carbon levels drop will be definitive.

Here's another viewpoint on your theory that half a degree over 20 years isn't a significant change Livers:

It's important now for one simple reason: The rate of climate change is what matters most. Given the positive feedback from carbon dioxide, such massive emissions of this gas over such a short time would imply significant climate shifts: A 2C change over a few thousand years can be adapted to by animal and plant species. But species cannot adapt if the climate changes too quickly; a 2C change over one hundred years or less is widely considered to be far too short of a timeframe to adapt. Given that warming has been accelerating over the past half-century, concern is warranted, as global warming is trending towards climate change rates that are potentially dangerous for ecosystem survival. Humans can pull up a blanket; animals and plants cannot.

 

[Liverpool]

Being in the food industry, our concern is only slightly about temp, more about changing weather patterns caused by the change. concerns are that even minor temp changes will result in currently temperate regions moving closer to semi-arid

Hurricanes and Cyclones aren't all that good for agriculture either are they?

I note both of your concerns.

However, I did ask about the BENEFITS of global warming, such as:

What about people living longer, as warmer weather (I'm not talking 43 degrees here or anything!) is of benefit to the sick and the elderly?
What about the rise in carbon-dioxide, where the human race has flourished by increasing in population?
What about the growth response of some plants, such as wheat, under carbon dioxide conditions?

I'm sure there are many benefits to the rise of 0.2 degrees every 50 years.

Just something to think about, thats all.....as all we hear is how BAD global warming is and the alarmists talking like we are going to suffer a day from the movie "A Day After Tomorrow' or something. :hihi

 

[Tiger74]

all thats nice, but without reliable rain in the right places, nothing grows.

 

[Liverpool]

You missed my point.
I know we all generally agree.
We however are not talking about the next million years, we are only talking about the next 100.
What dont you want done? What actions/remedies do you not want introduced that have fired you up as much as this on an issue where we all generally agree?
If there are none, Im not sure what the last few pages of debate have been about

I'm not fired-up.
You should read some of the "Racial Tolerance" thread....or if someone bags Liverpool.
:hihi

I don't want us to sign Kyoto, when we have places like China spewing out more emissions than the USA even.

I simply don't want us to panic.
There is a lot of alarmist rubbish out there (some on this thread), like the whole world is going to cave in tomorrow, and certain groups are praying on the naive and the gullible, with outrageous theories and claims of cities being underwater and the South Pole melting, and other rubbish.

By all means, do your bit for the environment if it makes you happy and content at night, but don't change your entire lives on some notion that we are going to save the planet.

That's all.

 

[Tiger74]

I'm not fired-up.
You should read some of the "Racial Tolerance" thread....or if someone bags Liverpool.
:hihi

I don't want us to sign Kyoto, when we have places like China spewing out more emissions than the USA even.

I simply don't want us to panic.
There is a lot of alarmist rubbish out there (some on this thread), like the whole world is going to cave in tomorrow, and certain groups are praying on the naive and the gullible, with outrageous theories and claims of cities being underwater and the South Pole melting, and other rubbish.

By all means, do your bit for the environment if it makes you happy and content at night, but don't change your entire lives on some notion that we are going to save the planet.

That's all.

Hate to break this to you then, but Im baffled about what this is about.

Disco and Evo from my read believe something is wrong because of humans, and that action is needed. They are not running for the hills though.

On Kyoto, I actually agree on China, and most here agree it is better with CHina. Most of the dispute has been about how to get China to the table, and what to do in the interim.

Sad to say Liv on this issue you are one of the masses, just get used to it (or go back to bashing Dreamtime at the G if you want to be controversial again :rofl)

 

[Liverpool]

At the very least lowering emissions will provide an expedient answer to the problem. What happens to the climate once carbon levels drop will be definitive.

Here's another viewpoint on your theory that half a degree over 20 years isn't a significant change Livers:

It's important now for one simple reason: The rate of climate change is what matters most. Given the positive feedback from carbon dioxide, such massive emissions of this gas over such a short time would imply significant climate shifts: A 2C change over a few thousand years can be adapted to by animal and plant species. But species cannot adapt if the climate changes too quickly; a 2C change over one hundred years or less is widely considered to be far too short of a timeframe to adapt. Given that warming has been accelerating over the past half-century, concern is warranted, as global warming is trending towards climate change rates that are potentially dangerous for ecosystem survival. Humans can pull up a blanket; animals and plants cannot.

I didn't say 0.5 of a degree over a 20 year period, but:

Disco,
I'll ask you a question now:
Has anyone thought that maybe if the Earth did warm by 0.5 of a degree over the next 100 years, that there might be some benefits to this?

Carbon levels dropping will take hundreds of years, for a start.
And unless I missed something in high-school....doesn't more and more carbon dioxide, produce less warming?

 

[Liverpool]

Sad to say Liv on this issue you are one of the masses, just get used to it

That's negative talk Tiger74!
I think the masses are joining me, if anything..."if you can't beat me, join me!"
:hihi