Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 117

Thread: Global warming.

  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    And where is the water gonna come from?
    Rivers and lakes, unless you are prepared to say humanities water usage exceeds global overland precipitation.


    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Too many people, not enough water, not enough clean water. It's a complicated mix of poverty and limits of natural resources, plus population increase. 95% of the water an America uses is embedded water. Poor countries are exporting vitally needed embedded water to rich ones, eg Kenyan beans flown to the UK. America actually is a net exporter of embedded water. However the point is Americans have a lot of water and they use a lot of water, but the rest of the world does not have so much water. America has a low population density and a temperate climate, so its only in the south where America has water shortages.
    plenty of water, not enough industry to exploit nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    It's complicated. New growth absorbs carbon, but when a rain forest is felled there is tons of CO2 released from the soil as well as the wood. Plus they are usually replaced with land for crops to feed cows, and I don't think that takes up much carbon, in fact the meat industry is one of the worst causes of global warming (see my 'why the world should go vegetarian' thread.)
    rofl, no you are right farmland holds less co2 permanently especially since we regularly harvest and release.

    That is not something I doubted, I doubt that old growth forests (meaning 4000 years as opposed to 65) have much more sequestered carbon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    But to harvest back that water it takes resources. My point was that we couldn't live solely off of the water that comes out of our....err behind. Because that is not where all of the water we consume goes.
    We don't have to clean it nature does that. My point was that we are just as much in the cycle as any animal has ever been and there is no real limit on how much nature can recycle given all 'regenerative' mechanisms scale to the size of the 'problem'. I have heard there is more bio-mass in insects than man, are you saying that if there were many more insects their population would be cut off because of a lack of water?

  2. #42
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    But to harvest back that water it takes resources.
    Certainly does. This is the main problem, to harvest more of the rainfall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    Rivers and lakes, unless you are prepared to say humanities water usage exceeds global overland precipitation.
    The places that are most short of water are Africa, the Middle East, India, Australia and Latin America. These are places that don't get much rain and don't have enough rivers and lakes. Egypt for example gets basically no rain, all its water comes from the Nile and a reservoir. There are likely to be wars over water in the future. Eg the Nile which provides Egypt's water starts in Ethiopia and Sudan. A lot of the water used to irrigate Syria and Iraq starts in Turkey (the Tigris and Euphrates rivers). Turkey is planning some dams which would decrease the flow downstream.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    plenty of water, not enough industry to exploit nature.
    I think this is half true as you can see from the above. But for poor farmers in poor countries, visions of vast technology are mainly out of the question, and don't forget technology needs resources and can cause global warming.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    rofl, no you are right farmland holds less CO2 permanently especially since we regularly harvest and release.

    Deforestation is estimated to cause 8% of man made CO2 emissions. Obviously this figure (which might be a bit low) includes new growth if the forest is cleared for agriculture).


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    That is not something I doubted, I doubt that old growth forests (meaning 4000 years as opposed to 65) have much more sequestered carbon.
    Well, just stick to this figure of 8% of emissions as an average. But there are other side effects to clearing old forest including loss of biodiversity, drying out of the local climate and so on.

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    The places that are most short of water are Africa, the Middle East, India, Australia and Latin America. These are places that don't get much rain and don't have enough rivers and lakes. Egypt for example gets basically no rain, all its water comes from the Nile and a reservoir. There are likely to be wars over water in the future. Eg the Nile which provides Egypt's water starts in Ethiopia and Sudan. A lot of the water used to irrigate Syria and Iraq starts in Turkey (the Tigris and Euphrates rivers). Turkey is planning some dams which would decrease the flow downstream.
    A subtle shift in your position, you asked where would the water would come from to build aqueducts from yet now point to specific locales with meager fresh water.

    If society does not wish to pay for aqueducts or other solutions in these regions they should move. That does not mean that global precipitation is falling short.

    You are trying to show that the human race could run out of water by make sand angels in the sahara.

    Why don't you take a swim in the great lakes or a boat ride on the amazon?

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    I think this is half true as you can see from the above. But for poor farmers in poor countries, visions of vast technology are mainly out of the question
    I have often observed that socialism is a self-reinforcing condition after it's incubation. It makes people and nations poor which shrinks the pie which makes it all the more 'crucial' that the pie is divided 'fairly'.

    In the most death-worshiping variants the shrinking of the pie reaches such a point where they do not believe it can be sliced fairly and they conclude that the surplus population is not needed by the collective anymore.

    If you could agree that poverty not natural resources limit our race and that the solution is therefore productivity and not it's restraint, then all other disagreements on the matter would be merely matters of implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    don't forget technology needs resources and can cause global warming.
    Of course it takes resources, the only ones of which we lack being ingenuity and enterprise. No technology we have created has effected global climate in a measurable way.

  4. #44
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    A subtle shift in your position, you asked where would the water would come from to build aqueducts from yet now point to specific locales with meager fresh water.

    If society does not wish to pay for aqueducts or other solutions in these regions they should move. That does not mean that global precipitation is falling short.
    So everyone in Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, China, and Australia should move?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    You are trying to show that the human race could run out of water by make sand angels in the sahara.

    Why don't you take a swim in the great lakes or a boat ride on the amazon?
    I dont follow what you are trying to say. The Amazon is a big river but it isnt the answer to a global shortage of water.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    I have often observed that socialism is a self-reinforcing condition after it's incubation. It makes people and nations poor which shrinks the pie which makes it all the more 'crucial' that the pie is divided 'fairly'.
    There has never been socialism. You are thinking of Stalinism, and they didn't do much of a job of dividing the pie fairly. Socialism is about increasing the size of the pie as well as dividing it fairly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    In the most death-worshiping variants the shrinking of the pie reaches such a point where they do not believe it can be sliced fairly and they conclude that the surplus population is not needed by the collective anymore.
    Please support (give examples)

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    If you could agree that poverty not natural resources limit our race and that the solution is therefore productivity and not it's restraint, then all other disagreements on the matter would be merely matters of implementation.
    Of course natural resources limit our race, the planet is a finite entity. Water is short and oil is running out. Land is scare and being degraded. The fish stocks are declining. A billion people cant even get enough food.

    These problems are related to poverty though, solutions could be found, but I don't believe capitalism is capable. Capitalism cant even be arsed to lift a little finger to deal with global warming. It's pathetic. America is the worst offender, using far more of its fair share and doing next to nothing to cut CO2 emissions.



    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    Of course it takes resources, the only ones of which we lack being ingenuity and enterprise. No technology we have created has effected global climate in a measurable way.
    What are you talking about? Are you saying man has not caused global warming?

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    So everyone in Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, China, and Australia should move?
    Or build the appropriate machines.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    I dont follow what you are trying to say. The Amazon is a big river but it isnt the answer to a global shortage of water.
    There can be no global water shortage only global waterworks shortage.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    There has never been socialism. You are thinking of Stalinism, and they didn't do much of a job of dividing the pie fairly. Socialism is about increasing the size of the pie as well as dividing it fairly.
    No I am thinking about socialism, the political economy based on the premise 'from each according to ability to each according to need', it is merely one of many who offer a standard of good besides the individual good. The individual as a standard of good necessitates the concept of liberty and all that follows, anything else is various levels of immorality.

    No man has the right to cut the pie which can only be assembled by wrenching crumbs from their rightful owners so the claim that no one has ever cut it fairly means nothing to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Please support (give examples)
    Quote Originally Posted by I andrew View Post
    the only solution to overpopulation is war and or a good old virus that targets and kills half of earths population.[COLOR="red"]

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Of course natural resources limit our race, the planet is a finite entity.
    Not right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Water is short and oil is running out. Land is scare and being degraded. The fish stocks are declining. A billion people cant even get enough food.
    rofl, land is scarce? Try to support any of this. (note I assume you mean can't as in can't because the resources don't exist to be used)

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    These problems are related to poverty though, solutions could be found, but I don't believe capitalism is capable. Capitalism cant even be arsed to lift a little finger to deal with global warming. It's pathetic. America is the worst offender, using far more of its fair share and doing next to nothing to cut CO2 emissions.
    There is no such thing as a fair share. There is the natural resources of this world and the only way to use more than you deserve is to take it from others by force.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    What are you talking about? Are you saying man has not caused global warming?
    Yes

  6. #46
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    Originally Posted by manc
    So everyone in Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, China, and Australia should move?
    Or build the appropriate machines.
    It's not as easy as that though is it. They don't have the resources. Or they would be building them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    There can be no global water shortage only global waterworks shortage.
    If you live in a country and evaporation increases and rain decreases, what is that? There isn't the water. This is what global warming is causing. Irrigation isn't the whole answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    No I am thinking about socialism, the political economy based on the premise 'from each according to ability to each according to need', it is merely one of many who offer a standard of good besides the individual good. The individual as a standard of good necessitates the concept of liberty and all that follows, anything else is various levels of immorality.
    I dont really know what this means. This is just vague words. People do not have freedom in capitalist society. You go to work for an employer and do a days work. At the end of the day the capitalist takes the work you have done and he owns it. He owns the work you do. You call freedom the freedom to be hungry in a world where there is no shortage of food? Freedom to be homeless, or not be able to afford medical equipment? Freedom to choose between two almost identical capitalist parties? Where is this freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    No man has the right to cut the pie which can only be assembled by wrenching crumbs from their rightful owners so the claim that no one has ever cut it fairly means nothing to me.
    I dont understand what you are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    Origally Posted by manc
    Water is short and oil is running out. Land is scare and being degraded. The fish stocks are declining. A billion people cant even get enough food.

    rofl, land is scarce? Try to support any of this. (note I assume you mean can't as in can't because the resources don't exist to be used)
    Why do you think they are chopping down forests to get more land for growing food? 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.
    more food will have to be produced worldwide over the next 50 years than has been during the past 10,000 years combined
    same link
    Global fish stocks will be gone in 50 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    There is no such thing as a fair share. There is the natural resources of this world and the only way to use more than you deserve is to take it from others by force.

    The planet has about 2 global hectares of biocapacity for everyone on the planet. We have already exceeded this, and population is set to grow 30%. American use about 5 times more than this. There is more on this on my Global Resources thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    Originally Posted by manc
    What are you talking about? Are you saying man has not caused global warming?
    Yes
    Back on topic. You are wrong. You have to support, 'yes' is not good enough. The scientific consensus is that man is causing warming. On the Bunk thread I have shown how we know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by man.

    What mechanism do you think is the cause?

    Why do you not think man's CO2 emissions is causing warming?
    Last edited by manc; December 27th, 2010 at 07:20 AM.

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    It's not as easy as that though is it. They don't have the resources. Or they would be building them.
    They have the natural resources.


    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    If you live in a country and evaporation increases and rain decreases, what is that? There isn't the water. This is what global warming is causing. Irrigation isn't the whole answer.
    Irrigation is the whole answer to not having enough fresh water in an area.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    I dont really know what this means. This is just vague words.
    They are general words, not vague; there is a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    People do not have freedom in capitalist society.
    People can only have freedom in a volitional society. I won't pretend that a volitional society is necessarily a capitalist society in the strictest sense but in all practicality it is, you cannot rely on unanimous consensus for about anything and without that (excluding the abandonment of trade) you are talking about at least in principle free trade -> capitalism in every consequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    You go to work for an employer and do a days work. At the end of the day the capitalist takes the work you have done and he owns it. He owns the work you do.
    He had better since you agreed to sell it to him and he is going to or has paid for the wealth exchange (A.K.A trade).

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    You call freedom the freedom to be hungry in a world where there is no shortage of food? Freedom to be homeless, or not be able to afford medical equipment? Freedom to choose between two almost identical capitalist parties?
    Yes, I call freedom the freedom to do anything except violate the rights of others. Since whether you eat or not whether there is food or not is not always a choice you make or whether you can have a home is not always a matter of choice or not having enough wealth to trade for medical equipment is beyond your ability the only choice there is to live in a world where these things exist, which is a choice to exist.

    Do you call freedom the freedom to be hungry in a world where men require food? Freedom to be homeless in a world where homes are valuable but do not appear at random?

    Who constrains us to find food, build homes, treat our wounds and diseases?

    Yes we live in such a world, blame god or nature or luck I do not care but the only freedom you are referring to is the fundamental freedom, to choose to exist. I say you can only hold men to answer for their actions not nature for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Where is this freedom?
    In the farmers dirty hands but proud demeanor looking at a field he just plowed and planted, In an architect gazing at a new home he designed congratulating the workers on their fine craftsmanship, In a researchers zeal as he explains how his invention can save lives to a group of eager doctors, and finally in any one's judgement on what is right and wrong when he hears the rhetoric of politics.

    The only freedoms that can be taken away are rights, everything else is lost or won according to the dictates of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    I dont understand what you are saying.
    The 'pie' is an abstraction of societies product because society is an abstraction of a group of individuals.

    In reality we have a great number of individuals producing things, often working together with other individuals to produce something greater yet still with distinct units of production.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Why do you think they are chopping down forests to get more land for growing food? 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded.
    same link
    Global fish stocks will be gone in 50 years.
    lol, I think they are cutting down forests for farmland because the population is growing and we are a long way from having an excess supply of food.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    The planet has about 2 global hectares of biocapacity for everyone on the planet. We have already exceeded this, and population is set to grow 30%. American use about 5 times more than this. There is more on this on my Global Resources thread.
    I could make do with 5,403.854 kilowatts

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Back on topic. You are wrong. You have to support, 'yes' is not good enough. The scientific consensus is that man is causing warming. On the Bunk thread I have shown how we know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by man.
    Well, the burden of proof would be yours but since you have referenced a thread I will check that out as your support.
    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    What mechanism do you think is the cause?
    Then sun
    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Why do you not think man's CO2 emissions is causing warming?
    1. Co2 does not cause any significant blanket effect so changing it's minute levels is irrelevant.
    2. We have not significantly changed the level of Co2 in the atmosphere.
    3. The greenhouse effect as a linear modifier is fundamentally incorrect.

  8. #48
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    I wanna stick to global warming, this thread is too broad.

    I have a separate thread on global resources.

    If you want to discuss that, read the thread, try to understand it, and then if you think there are any flaws come back on specific points with supported evidence or if you have any questions feel free to ask them.


    Liberty
    Who constrains us to find food, build homes, treat our wounds and diseases?
    This is a big political question, I'm not gonna try to answer it here

    Liberty
    Since whether you eat or not whether there is food or not is not always a choice you make or whether you can have a home is not always a matter of choice or not having enough wealth to trade for medical equipment is beyond your ability the only choice there is to live in a world where these things exist, which is a choice to exist
    And please try to write in a way that people can understand.

    I could make do with 5,403.854 kilowatts
    And don't write total garbage


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    1. CO2 does not cause any significant blanket effect so changing it's minute levels is irrelevant.
    2. We have not significantly changed the level of Co2 in the atmosphere.
    3. The greenhouse effect as a linear modifier is fundamentally incorrect.
    1. I am prepared to discuss that on here. You need to support, with evidence. I will dig up an explanation.

    Edit:

    I have mentioned it on the Bunk thread. CO2 20% of the greenhouse effect and 80% of the forcing. I can't explain the science, there is 100 years of research and work by people like NASA. Suffice to say the greenhouse gases trap heat radiating out from the earth. Without any greenhouse gases the planet would be too cold for human life. If you want the history of how the greenhouse effect has been understood see here
    American Institute of Physics
    The Discovery of Global Warming
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
    This is the scientific consensus (see the end of this thread http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...hoax-after-all), most climate scientists agree that warming over the last 150 years has been partly caused by man, especially the last 30 years where the sun was clearly not a factor (again see the Bunk thread)

    2. See the Bunk thread

    3. WTF is this supposed to mean?

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    And don't write total garbage
    lol

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    1. I am prepared to discuss that on here. You need to support, with evidence. I will dig up an explanation.
    No, you need to support with evidence, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative position; i.e. those who say something is so not those who are skeptical.

    I have noticed a very very important flaw in the reasoning of both evolutionist and AGCC supporters; they believe that evidence alone is sufficient.

    It is not, there must also be sound reasoning connecting evidence to any given conclusion; in scientific terms it means your hypothesis has to be valid before you can support it with experiment.

    In logical terms it means that even if an argument has all true premises, it can still be as false as they come if it is invalid.

    Joe likes trees
    Bob is a person
    Therefore joe likes bob.

    Joe can like trees and bob can be a person regardless of how joe feels about bob.

    If Co2 was warming the earth and Co2 levels were increasing because of man, man would be warming the earth.

    Well the earth is warming so it must be man.

    If candy canes moved tectonic plates and if people made candy canes then men would be moving tectonic plates.

    Well the plates are moving so it must be man.

    So, in summary if you are planning to merely post some data correlating co2 with temperature then note that man has increased co2 output (well started really) don't bother. I have seen them before and it isn't the facts that are in question but their logical implications.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    I have mentioned it on the Bunk thread. CO2 20% of the greenhouse effect and 80% of the forcing. I can't explain the science
    Ok, I have already ceded that my responsibility is now to review the threads you have mentioned, but the bolded part caught me completely off guard.

    What do you think you are going to accomplish then?

    I can assure you you are wasting your time merely responding to me on global warming if you do not intend to advance a scientific argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    there is 100 years of research and work by people like NASA.
    Oh and leave out all appeals to authority, I ignore them always and I never use them myself. Of course I can't stop them just saying you will never win an argument against me with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Suffice to say the greenhouse gases trap heat radiating out from the earth.
    To what degree? Let me ask you this, you can see in IR and you are looking at earth from orbit; is the planet missing the colors that Co2 'traps'?

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    Without any greenhouse gases the planet would be too cold for human life.
    Would this be the calculation where earth is assumed to be a blackbody?

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    3. WTF is this supposed to mean?
    More Co2 warmer right? are there other factors specifically about the elements of Co2 and radiation that you have considered?

  10. #50
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    No, you need to support with evidence, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative position; i.e. those who say something is so not those who are skeptical.
    I have the vast majority of climate scientists on my side. I do not need to prove anything. And there is 100 years research by thousands of scientists. I cant post all that. I can try to give an overview and describe the basics, that's all. If you think most climate scientists are wrong, give your reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    So, in summary if you are planning to merely post some data correlating co2 with temperature then note that man has increased co2 output (well started really) don't bother. I have seen them before and it isn't the facts that are in question but their logical implications.
    This is just all vague words, what are you specific reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    Ok, I have already ceded that my responsibility is now to review the threads you have mentioned, but the bolded part caught me completely off guard.

    What do you think you are going to accomplish then?
    See above. I might outline some of the basics. It's up to you to say why 100 years of research by scientists is all wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post
    I can assure you you are wasting your time merely responding to me on global warming if you do not intend to advance a scientific argument.
    Have you read any of the science? If so you should know it. If not, how can you dispute it?

    Here are the basics:

    1. We know man has emitted 500 billion tons of C02
    2. This has increased atmospheric CO2 by 35%
    3. CO2 causes about 20% of the greenhouse effect and 80% of the forcing.

    4. The planet is warming and we know CO2 traps heat and we know of no other mechanism that could cause this much warming.



    Quote Originally Posted by Liberty View Post

    To what degree? Let me ask you this, you can see in IR and you are looking at earth from orbit; is the planet missing the colors that Co2 'traps'?


    Would this be the calculation where earth is assumed to be a blackbody?


    More Co2 warmer right? are there other factors specifically about the elements of Co2 and radiation that you have considered?
    I have no idea what any of this means. The earth gets heated by the sun but it also emits heat back. The CO2 traps this heat.

  11. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Okay, so to start with CO2.

    The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5.174*10^18 kg, that means that 5.174*10^12 kg represents 1 ppm of the atmosphere, or 5.174 billion metric tons.

    We (globally) produce 22.83 billion metric tons of CO2 per year, meaning that we account for about 4.4 ppm increase per year in CO2.

    Of course, nature tries to deal with as much as it can (increased concentrations in the air lead to increased concentrations in the water, and plants can absorb someone of it), so we are only seeing an actual increase of about 2 - 3 ppm per year right now.

    ---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 PM ----------

    Since I could not post links for my first post, here they are now.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...-co2-emissions

  12. #52
    JDavison8
    Guest

    Re: Global warming.

    Hi lads, well I am one of those people you would call a 'conspiracy theorist' but any ways, I believe, 100% that global warming is man made, deliberately, to call for more taxes and many many more reasons.

    It is the military and research institutions which do it deliberately. And how do they do this do you ask? H.A.A.R.P, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, this has the power to alter the weather where ever it is, and these sites are all over the world. I believe that they use HAARP at the same time they collect data to prove global warming is real. Also planes leave behind 'contrails' which the military have admitted, contains heavy metals, pesticides and other chemicals along with water. These can also effect the way the suns rays are reflected and the way clouds are formed.

  13. #53
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    I'm not really into debating this kind of stuff, but your theory is about 0.00000001% likely to be true. For one thing HAARP only started in 1993. The discovery of global warming and the greenhouse effect has been going on for 100 years, as has global warming itself. It was indeed NASA scientists who played a big role in discovering how the greenhouse effect works, but up until recently the American government was putting pressure on them to keep QUIET about it, because America did not want to admit that we humans are causing global warming. They had too many vested interests in oil etc. Only world pressure and pressure from the scientific community forced the US administration to admit it.

    You can read the history of how the greenhouse effect was uncovered here or a short 'nutshell' version here. The NASA scientists were working on defence, and made their discoveries by accident. It was no plot.

    Oh, welcome to the site btw

  14. #54
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    To add to this thread's discussion of whether a consensus exists or not a recent peer reviewed study found only 36% of geoscientists and engineers agreed that with the idea that humans are creating a global warming crises.

    Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavison8 View Post
    Hi lads, well I am one of those people you would call a 'conspiracy theorist' but any ways, I believe, 100% that global warming is man made, deliberately, to call for more taxes and many many more reasons.

    It is the military and research institutions which do it deliberately. And how do they do this do you ask? H.A.A.R.P, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, this has the power to alter the weather where ever it is, and these sites are all over the world. I believe that they use HAARP at the same time they collect data to prove global warming is real. Also planes leave behind 'contrails' which the military have admitted, contains heavy metals, pesticides and other chemicals along with water. These can also effect the way the suns rays are reflected and the way clouds are formed.
    Hmmmm. This sounds really plausible. Sure. The U.S. government in 1993 was run by Bill Clinton. Yet, H.A.A.R.P. must have been in the planning stages since Bush I. So, the administrations of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have covertly been altering weathter patterns to create an artificial global warming scare. I should also mention that this project has been conducted by the U.S. Navy, the Airforce, the University of Alaska, and DARPA. On top of all that, the project wasn't completed until 2007 (someone else mentioned this).

    Oddly, and perhaps you can reconcile this, man-made global warming has been a controversy since the late 1980's. So, prior to H.A.A.R.P. governments in Europe were already noting the existence of man-made global warming. By 2006 (1 year prior to the creation of H.A.A.R.P.) the U.S. public already considered global warming an important issue. Also, despite the fact that multiple government agencies, public researchers, and presidential administrations were involved in this "plot" nothing has been leaked to the public... hmmmm. Cause we know how good the government is at keeping secrets.

    I am gonna do.... right now.... I'm callin' bullshyte.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  16. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    To add to this thread's discussion of whether a consensus exists or not a recent peer reviewed study found only 36% of geoscientists and engineers agreed that with the idea that humans are creating a global warming crises.
    I don't think that is an accurate read of that article.

    36% of their sample supported enacting the Kyoto protocals as written.
    24% argue that natural forces overshadow any human influence
    10% are identified as opposing Kyoto on economic grounds and are largely agnostic on if climate change is real or man-made
    17% don't feel the science is well defined enough to call for action but are not convinced one way or another
    5% are not Kyoto supporters but are seen as even more active in wanting environmental regulation and action
    The rest 18% were not able to be put into one of those categories.

    Whether humans created the crisis or not is not really the criteria on their "frames" as they call them. They are interested if people are part of the Kyoto consensus or not and if not what is the nature of their opposition.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. #57
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Whether humans created the crisis or not is not really the criteria on their "frames" as they call them. They are interested if people are part of the Kyoto consensus or not and if not what is the nature of their opposition.
    I think you might be misunderstanding the nature of the their study. The concept of a position frame is a very common one in social sciences. It is used to group individual positions shown to have a relation. For example you might have a paper that says GW is caused by Solar disturbances and one that says it is caused by cyclical atmospheric changes. Neither are the same position, but they share a common attribute.

    Lets take a relatively simple example, the age of the Earth. Few people with views on this topic (if any) would agree with each other on the exact age of the earth. However, there are some relatively large categories that we can fit them into. Category A (4.5B, 4.2B, 4.6B) and Category B (6000, 10,000). Those represent two frames.

    In our paper they have labelled the frames as "comply with Kyoto," "Nature is overwhelming," "Economic responsibility,"Fatalists," and "Regulation activists." The nature of Kyoto itself isn't really the heart of why they would be in this category, as described in the paper;

    In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life. In their prognostic framing, they tend to fear that the risks are greater in extent (i.e., global and regional) and in magnitude (i.e., changes to both the average state and variability of the climate) than other groups; they believe to a lesser degree that climate change has long-term effects only and to a higher degree that it will result in warming as opposed to cooling and warming. They are the only group to see the scientific debate as mostly settled and the IPCC modeling to be accurate...

    The nature of this group is that they believe that the anthropogenic part of global warning will lead to severe climactic problems. The primary distinguishing trait of this frame is whether or not it humans are primarily responsible for shifting climate.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by himanshu10140 View Post
    Global warming is taking our money money in billions along with death of many people due to respiratory diseases.developed countries are accusing developing countries for not utilising funds properly but they are the real culprits increasing global warming.the recent oil spill is an example. The developed are waging wars which led to industrial and ecological devastation.
    Ok here you are saying that GLOBAL WARMING is causing death due to respiratory problems. You are assuming a causal relationship, that A causes B. May I ask on what basis you establish this relationship? How does the earth getting 1 or 2 degrees hotter contribute to my respiratory health? Answer: it doesn't. By the way, oil spills do not do anything for global warming.

  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    I think both global warming and overpopulation are bunk theories.

    Population solves itself through market forces. You can see nations reduce their own output of kids as they become more and more expensive to have. Nations like Germany and Japan don't even replace their populations. Countries like India and China will slow down rapidly as their economies develop and become prosperous.

    If you pre-define "Global Warming", I'll probably be willing to debate that it exists at all. If you're merely saying that temperatures change, and sometimes they go up - then I'm willing to agree.
    He who has an ear, let them hear.

  20. Likes Someguy liked this post
  21. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post

    Population solves itself through market forces.

    Very good point. The market will make the hard choices that the government isnt capable of doing. Quality point indeed.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  22. Likes Gherkin liked this post
 

 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming...hoax after all?
    By Apokalupsis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: December 27th, 2010, 08:06 AM
  2. Global Warming III
    By Zorak in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 7th, 2008, 11:33 AM
  3. Global Warming
    By Firewing in forum Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2008, 09:44 AM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2007, 11:22 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •