global warming....not.

[DrVirus]

I don't deny that we are polluting motherfuckers, in fact I believe we are exactly that.

What I am insisting is that this whole global warming, where the temperatures are rising, is merely falsified.

Pollution, what is it ? By definition it is undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities.

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms

So you admit the fact that we are polluting motherfuckers and deny the possibility that it might have some ill effect ?
Isn't that contradictory ?

There is MUCH political power to be attained. If you think about it, there are three main control structures in any given society. Belief System, Government System and Monetary System; never before have we had a global issue that has touched on all three of these systems at the same time. Think about that for awhile.

Well of course you are right. But let us also think about another fact as well. See there are millions of companies around the world dealing various fields. They all use energy one way or the other. Hence if such a thing as global warming caused by misuse of such energies was to happen. And the remedy of the said event, just happen to be lesser use of energy thus making their business less profitable than it was, it will piss them off right ? I know it will piss me off ! So what can be the course of action to prevent such a catastrophe ? Gee, we can always say global warming is a bunch of bull can't we ??

One last thing, since we are publishing list of scientists with degree on both sides, it suddenly made me remember a bit of history. There was a time when people believed that the earth was in the center of the galaxy and the sun went around it. As I recall a bloke called Galileo and another one called Copernicus said it wasn't true. Don't remember many supporting them. Do you ? And how did that argument end ? Gee, I forgot, refresh my memory if you please



(It's just sarcasm, no hard feelings people)
DrV

[Big-E]

I don't really know how your arguments fit here, but lets see.

Isn't that contradictory ?

No. I said that we pollute. I also suggest the fear associated with global warming is bullshit. In fact, I am suggesting there is no correlation between the two. However, I do insist that we need to change our polluting habits (because of the effects it has on our planet)

So you are suggesting with a subset of data as minuscule as .0000033% of the larger dataset, we can come to some serious scientific conclusions? The fact that Galileo had no support is because it contradicted one of my aforementioned control structures, religion, and in fact had little to do with the science behind it. Perhaps your belief structure is also influencing your opinion here? Yes, Environmentalism is nothing more than a conscripted religion, influenced by your Education.

Don't believe me? I doubt you will ever get through it, but read Agenda 21 signed by delegates of the United Nations. It basically outlines everything I have been suggesting. This is an actual agenda, signed and put in place by the UN. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_ ... 1_00.shtml

[DrVirus]

My point was that it doesn't matter how many are promoting a conclusion. It can be wrong still. The key factor in your latest argument is that there is hardly any scientific conclusion. Exactly my point. There isn't one. That makes you right when you say that global warming might be a hoax. But it also suggest it might not be.

In all of your posts you have claimed that global warming is not there. Period ! But how can that be since there is no "scientific conclusion" to back that up ? If you read my 3 posts, I always said there is a possibility that global warming is not so big as we thought. U didn't.

When you are proposing something as a certain fact, it falls on your shoulder to prove it as one.

One more thing, you said that the pollution effects our environment. And not in a good way. And that you acknowledge and condemn that. So you do agree that we need to stop pollution. Which should be a prime agenda to every human living in this planet who give a shit. So does it really matters which terms compels people to do it ? Whether it's Global Warming or Dead Spices ?

The guys who are trying their best to use their intellect to prove that there is not and can not be a thing like global warming, do you guys realize something ? If that is the case, if it gets proved to a certainty that we were deceived in the name of saving the world. What will happen then ? Most people who were made to do some good for the planet will now have an excuse not to. "It's a lie too." Then it will fall on our shoulders to prove that it is not. Each and every term.

It never was innocent until proven guilty. It always was the other way around.

DrV

[Big-E]

Lies.

I said multiple times to check out Pan Evaporation. It's a valid, scientific experiment closely measured over the last 50 years.

Over the last 50 or so years, pan evaporation has been carefully monitored. For decades, nobody took much notice of the pan evaporation measurements. But in the 1990s scientists spotted something that at the time was considered very strange; the rate of evaporation was falling.[8] This trend has been observed all over the world except in a few places where it has increased

....

As the global climate warms, all other things being equal, evaporation will increase and as a result, the hydrological cycle will accelerate [13]. The downward trend of pan evaporation has been linked to a phenomenon called global dimming.[14] [15]In 2005 Wild et al. and Pinker et al. found that the "dimming" trend had reversed since about 1990

Weird. Right?

Also, I would like for your to read more into the climate gate, which is what the OP is on. It has been proven that scientific data has been falsified; They artificially proped up the data.

I am not denying there are sever detrimental effects of anthropogenic waste on the environment. Effects we wont even realize for another 25 years. What I am suggesting is that the scientific data supporting Global Warming is not scientific. Just like you can't prove God exists, you can't prove that Global Warming exists using science. It`s a belief system..a religion; it asinine how much zealotry goes on around this topic.

[waringers]

I can see that we all agree that global warming is political and very controversial.

I dont....

Im done trying to explain why me and many others believe humans are having a very negative impact on our planet.

As for winter in India, that is a BIG fact SUPPORTING global warming, how you ask, well listen up.

You know how our earth is unevenly heated by the sun, so global winds develop. Now, with global warming, it isnt just warming up the whole earth, it is compleatly and tottaly collapsing our earth ecosystem. Places that used to cold are heating up, and places that used to be warm are cooling down. The north pole is melting. India is cooling, animals are dying, were breeding crosses. Our whole frikin planet is being screwed up. And Big-E, you dont understand how delacate our planet really is, the ecosystem is so fragile, you remove one or two species and it will slowly throw the entire continent off. Its like a wheel having a slight fault in it, it will start to whobble slowly at first, but soon, it will go crazy.

Our entire planet had that perfect balance, but we are destroying it faster and faster. I believe it is known as the chaos theory:

A butterfly flaps its wings in Seattle, and the weather in Portland is different

Luckly, our earth can adapt itself, and if you remove a specie, it can adapt and rebalance itself after a bit. But humans are killing off a lot more than a specie or two, and we arent simply building camp fires anymore and releasing a bit of pollution, we have massive factories, and millions of cars, the pollution level is through the roof, the animal extinction list is massive, and we have hundreds or thousands of crossed breeds, and crossed vegetation. We are past the past where the earth can simply repair itself, even if we suddenly disappear. If humans did suddenly disappear, and came back when the earth stabalized itself, it would be a different world.

But yes, this can be simply proven, buy an iguana, and feed it flies. Take away the flies, and even if the iguana looks the same for a couple weeks, and maybe starts looking better and trimmer in a couple weeks, eventually you cant simply ignore the fact that the iguana is dying. And if you game back in a while, the plants might be living, but its a different place without the animal. Same with earth, take away thousands of species, change the weather dramatically, and we are literarly attempting to change the ecosystem and create a new one. Now if anyone here thinks that they can manufacture a ecosystem for this huge planet, speak up, otherwise, our planet is in deep trouble.

I believe that the earth is in much deeper stuff then simply global warming, I think our ecosystem is equally, or more important than the weather, although global warming is happening faster.

PS: Are we allowed to cuss in our forums now .

[Big-E]

You win.

Mostly, I am just bored of beating my head against the wall.

[waringers]

Yay .

Um, Just wanted to say, for everyone I was arguing with, I hope I didnt offend anyone, if I did, Im sorry, no hard feelings?

[Lundis]

Not liking changes is part of the human nature. Thus, most changes are interpreted as negative, crazy, destructive, chaotic, troublesome and any other words you can imagine. You say that the Earth's ecosystem will be thrown off if species go extinct. So what? Nothing will happen to the ecosystem, it will simply reroute and keep on going. Survival of the fittest.

If humans did suddenly disappear, and came back when the earth stabilized itself, it would be a different world.

That's my point, it will be different, that doesn't mean its bad. I hate when people cant see that the reason they say something is bad/wrong is just because it isn't the same as before.

You're also bashing crossbreeding, I guess that you're also against gene modification then? Why would these things be bad? A common argument is "it alters nature" . I don't even see how it is an argument. It simply states an objective fact, that nature will change. In the same spirit we should spend all our time hunting down species and bacterias that have been 'harmed' by the effects of evolution.

If the water level raises, people living on islands and near the sea will have to move. This will be interpreted as very bad by most people. Naturally so, since I doubt many would happily abandon their homes and move somewhere else (which is a problem by itself). But saying that this is bad for Earth is just stupid.

Global warming won't erase the human race. I don't think humans are the main cause of it anyway. What we should focus on preventing, as have been stated already, are changes that directly make the earth, as our home, suck. These problems are mainly pollution and reductions of the ozone layer. They kill us and our food. There is no subjectivity in that statement (AFAIK).

If you care about the environment, do it for the right reasons. Skip the idealism.

[Big-E]

I never know what you are talking about waringers. Anyway...

Lundis, you provided one the best insights into this discussion thus far. I think you're 100% correct when you say that changes are interpreted as chaotic. However, I think we are at a loss to assume that we CAN do anything, mother nature should not be messed with. Let it do its own thing.

Enter this graph, which is the dataset plotted from the oldest continual record set derived from central England. As you can see, as the anthropogenic influences increases, the temperature stays on the same plane as prior to an increase in carbon emissions.

BUT OMG IT WAS SO HOT THIS SUMMER. LOLZ AT EVIDENCE.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010 ... 805970b-pi

[JohnB]

Have you heard of the pizzly bear? It's a hybrid between a grizzly and polar bear. Hybrids rarely occur readily in nature and are most often sterile. The reason the pizzly bear is growing in numbers is due to the destruction of the polar bears habitat (ice sheets melting). This leaves fewer mates for the polar bear and so it has to interbreed.

Would you count that as evidence?

[Big-E]

Would you count that as evidence?

Ha. No.

[waringers]

Wooooooooowwwww, I didnt say Im against cross breeding, I think it is amazing, and have done a lot of research on it. It really is an amazing science, but I am saying that it is hurting our ecosystem a lot.

[Big-E]

Wooooooooowwwww, I didnt say Im against gene modification, I think it is amazing, and have dont a lot of research on it. It really is an amazing science, but I am saying that it is hurting our ecosystem a lot.

Did you recently escape from an insane asylum? You are loony.

[IceDane]

Wooooooooowwwww, I didnt say Im against gene modification, I think it is amazing, and have dont a lot of research on it. It really is an amazing science, but I am saying that it is hurting our ecosystem a lot.

Are you sure you know exactly what you are talking about?

[waringers]

Yes, But Im not so sure about you