PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe that humans are the cause for climate change?


dropshot winner
12-07-2009, 06:34 AM
10 characters.

drakulie
12-07-2009, 06:46 AM
No, that would be the cows fault.

dropshot winner
12-07-2009, 06:58 AM
No, that would be the cows fault.
So what you're saying is that burning billion tons of fossil fuels has no effect?

By the way, cows would never exist in those numbers if it weren't for factory farming.

drakulie
12-07-2009, 08:21 AM
So what you're saying is that burning billion tons of fossil fuels has no effect?

yup.

By the way, cows would never exist in those numbers if it weren't for factory farming.

so lets get rid of the cows, cars, electricity, etc.

Lets go back to the days of cavemen, so we could make Al Gore happy.

dropshot winner
12-07-2009, 09:04 AM
yup.
Ignorance is a bliss.

Did you know that 1% of climate-scientiest doubt that climate change is caused by humans. When you ask the american public about that topic, you get a figure of the doubters in the 60%-range.
I really don't know why that is the case, but when I think about how many still doubt the theory of evolution I'm far less surprised.

so lets get rid of the cows, cars, electricity, etc.

Lets go back to the days of cavemen, so we could make Al Gore happy.
For the record, Al Gore is an idiot, a hypocrite who thinks puting a tiny solar panel on his huge house and releasing a movie with partialy faked data is enough to get back his soul which he sold in the years before.

You must be the the kind of person who's convinced that there's absolutely no shade between the brightest white and the darkest black. Otherwise you'd know that there's no need to get rid of cows, cars or electricity.

One example:
House A has very bad insulation and gets its energy to heat from coal.
House B has good insulation and gets its energy from wind/sun.

Both houses can be equally warm inside, but the amound of CO2 and wasted energy is VERY different.

The same about cars, if politicians wouldn't be such idiots we would have cars with the same mobility and for the same price, but with far less emissions.

It'll probably take natural distasters that kill millions before the majority is willing to open its eyes.

dlk
12-07-2009, 09:11 AM
Minimally, in the greater scheme of "life."

While you're at these posts, what about evolution vs. bible?

dropshot winner
12-07-2009, 09:17 AM
Minimally, in the greater scheme of "life."

While you're at these posts, what about evolution vs. bible?

What can I say, I'm not a religious person, but I do believe in almost all values that are tought in the bible (exceptions are sex before marriage and things like that). Actually most religions have very good values at their core.

Now I don't believe in creation in the classic sense. Evolution makes perfect sense in my eyes, but I feel like there's something it can't explain (how it all started, how it went from dead matter to a living organism).

tennis005
12-07-2009, 09:19 AM
I heard that the earth puts out like 50 times more co2 then humans do.

dropshot winner
12-07-2009, 09:25 AM
I heard that the earth puts out like 50 times more co2 then humans do.

I don't know the numbers by heart, but you need to keep in mind that the whole eco-system is very complex. It something rises by 10% it doesn't mean everything else changes by 10%.

A simple analogy, imagine an empty 1000 gallon barel in your house/flat. You can fill in 1000 gallons of water without any problems, but if you put in another 100 gallons you got a mess.

jmverdugo
12-07-2009, 09:26 AM
Not completely but we definitely are part of the problem.

dlk
12-07-2009, 09:27 AM
What can I say, I'm not a religious person, but I do believe in almost all values that are tought in the bible (exceptions are sex before marriage and things like that). Actually most religions have very good values at their core.

Now I don't believe in creation in the classic sense. Evolution makes perfect sense in my eyes, but I feel like there's something it can't explain (how it all started, how it went from dead matter to a living organism).

Fair enough & agree.

jazzyfunkybluesy
12-07-2009, 09:58 AM
What can I say, I'm not a religious person, but I do believe in almost all values that are tought in the bible (exceptions are sex before marriage and things like that). Actually most religions have very good values at their core.

Now I don't believe in creation in the classic sense. Evolution makes perfect sense in my eyes, but I feel like there's something it can't explain (how it all started, how it went from dead matter to a living organism).

It was a slow process that took millions of years to evolve. The discovery channel has some brilliant scientists and shows on this.

basil J
12-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Regardless of whether humans are responsable or not, we need the next industrial revolution to jump start our economy and renewable energy and alternative energies that will allow us to cut our ties with the middle east will help reduce emissions will create sustainable jobs and reduce our reliance on middle east oil. That would be a win win for the US.

TENNISSLAVE
12-07-2009, 10:16 AM
Regardless of whether humans are responsable or not, we need the next industrial revolution to jump start our economy and renewable energy and alternative energies that will allow us to cut our ties with the middle east will help reduce emissions will create sustainable jobs and reduce our reliance on middle east oil. That would be a win win for the US.

Yes from a business point of view its much better to not go for something thats running out anyhow or that will be taxed sooner or latter as coal will be . Oil is a valuable commodity and we use it as the opposite.


To use it sensibly aka where its is absouluetly necessary and has no substitute and use other sources that create jobs here at home . Thats where the world is going .

Better to be on board and make profit from smart investments and ideas than be left behind.. Like we did up in Detriot when we stuck to gas guzzlers. To do the same mistake twice is the sign of being an idiot.
Lets not do that .

Smartbucks
12-07-2009, 10:25 AM
Of course it matters .. 47 billion tons of emissions per year and the fatc its been done for a long while now changes the climate besides acidifying the oceans . Both are bad but both can easily be fixed if we get our as.es in gear .

swedechris
12-07-2009, 10:52 AM
Of course it matters .. 47 billion tons of emissions per year and the fatc its been done for a long while now changes the climate besides acidifying the oceans . Both are bad but both can easily be fixed if we get our as.es in gear .

No kidding .
But what is the best way to fix it then in your view?

drakulie
12-07-2009, 10:56 AM
At least 40 billions tons of emissions could be directly linked to internet use, so I would say to cut the internet. Unknowingly, Al Gore created a monster when he invneted the internet.

Smartbucks
12-07-2009, 11:24 AM
At least 40 billions tons of emissions could be directly linked to internet use, so I would say to cut the internet. Unknowingly, Al Gore created a monster when he invneted the internet.

Drak , take your pills.

Dedans Penthouse
12-07-2009, 04:17 PM
10 characters.
Who are they?

fps
12-07-2009, 04:28 PM
At least 40 billions tons of emissions could be directly linked to internet use, so I would say to cut the internet. Unknowingly, Al Gore created a monster when he invneted the internet.

al gore didn't invent it.

and

global warming has become a political issue, with conservatives thinking its just a lefty excuse to get rid of big business. this kind of political posturing needs to stop, there is no doubt that something crazy is happening to our planet because of what we are doing. none. go look at the evidence instead of picking holes in the .1% of research that's no good. there are very stupid people at very high levels who are doing nothing to stop future generations dying.

flyinghippos101
12-07-2009, 04:34 PM
Ah Drakulie, you and your insane satire... puts a smile on my face everytime I read your posts. But you should be happy to note, I put your posts on a higher regard than say...Fedace. That's gotta count for something :D

fed_the_savior
12-07-2009, 06:46 PM
Why is there no "unsure" option.

Sentinel
12-07-2009, 07:28 PM
10 characters.

Who are they?
oh, c'mon Dedan's. Do we have to repeat that boring story of those ten idiots who crossed the river and each counted everyone but himself .... :twisted::)

Stewy30
12-07-2009, 07:37 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html

WBF
12-07-2009, 08:01 PM
At least 40 billions tons of emissions could be directly linked to internet use, so I would say to cut the internet. Unknowingly, Al Gore created a monster when he invneted the internet.

I don't agree with drakulie on the issue of the environment, but the Internet is a major contributor. I don't think people realize how much energy goes into
1.) powering the vast, vast number of servers
2.) powering the vast, vast, vast, vast cooling requirements for these servers

I am less knowledgeable on the tangential effects, but I would imagine the online shopping (I'm very bad on this front...) contributes via less efficient delivery (e.g. to the door vs. to large shopping locations).

drakulie: you've probably answered this but... Are you just against the government handling this? I.e. carbon tax and so forth? What about emission standards for vehicles? Other controls? Are you just against the whole CO2 side of the environmental issue? Do you think it is some massive conspiracy? Are you under the impression that this many, and this many distinguished and notable scientists would risk their reputations for it? Why would they?

FedererForehand
12-07-2009, 08:51 PM
Climate change= shenanigans: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html

dropshot winner
12-08-2009, 12:27 AM
Climate change= shenanigans: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html

People in all fields lie and cheat, including climate scientist. But by no means is that incident evidence that climate change is not happening.

I hope for your sake that Fox isn't your source of information, it doesn't get more biased.

dropshot winner
12-08-2009, 03:14 AM
Right on topic:
http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/53/2009/12/07/72072_600.jpg

origmarm
12-08-2009, 04:03 AM
I voted yes. Frankly I think anyone that believes that the billions of tons of C02 emitted each year has no effect is just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la". Are we wholly responsible? Unlikely. Are we responsible for the majority of atmospheric change? Yes. Is this very likely to be linked to climate change? Yes.

Smartbucks
12-08-2009, 10:34 AM
I voted yes. Frankly I think anyone that believes that the billions of tons of C02 emitted each year has no effect is just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "la la la". Are we wholly responsible? Unlikely. Are we responsible for the majority of atmospheric change? Yes. Is this very likely to be linked to climate change? Yes.

For sure. It also kills life thats the basis for life it self. The ocean .. why .. Because CO2 +H2O=H2CO3 carbonic acid which ACIDFIES and kills
the bottom of the food chain = plankton,
shell fish and coral reefs whcih then in turn
causes a controlled demolition of all the life
the ocean harbors. Than the ocean would start
to emitt carbon and then we are s.c.r.e.w.e.d.

Bottom line is .. lets not go there.


In essence its a simple issue for given the huge inefficiency of our
energy input ( i.e whaput into the pipe or grid vs what you as a consumer /customer get out of it ) is a VERY VERY BAD deal.
In Europe they have gone ahead and are fixing these things besides taxing carbon intensive activiites which drives business and innovation to create good smart safe soultions . We can do it too. Check out AMORY LOVINS . He is very good.

Kobble
12-08-2009, 10:54 AM
Who are they?The people responsible for our dependence on foreign oil.

Camilio Pascual
12-08-2009, 11:06 AM
Evolution makes perfect sense in my eyes, but I feel like there's something it can't explain (how it all started, how it went from dead matter to a living organism).
Other than an understanding of genetics and probability/statistics, an understanding of the three laws of thermodynamics, especially the 2nd law, is required.
I'm an evolutionist, through and through. But, it is unreasonable for evolutionists to expect most people to understand it or to believe it based on faith.

BlackGolden
12-08-2009, 11:41 PM
I dont think pollution that we can avoid like in the case of CO2 , especailly knowingkly, is ok

It should not be considered worthy as a legitimate part of evolution.
Evolution has up til now moved 'unconsciously' so what we are now trying to avoid is a conscious Blitzkrieg and wipeout of species.

dropshot winner
12-09-2009, 12:37 AM
Other than an understanding of genetics and probability/statistics, an understanding of the three laws of thermodynamics, especially the 2nd law, is required.
I'm an evolutionist, through and through. But, it is unreasonable for evolutionists to expect most people to understand it or to believe it based on faith.
I know about Abiogenesis and stuff like that, but I'm far from an expert.
As far as I know the beginning of life is still not fully understood, there are likely theories and experiments that give us a idea (Urey–Miller), but proven is nothing at this point.

drakulie
12-09-2009, 06:57 AM
I wonder what role people played in the climate change of the Ice Age?

Dedans Penthouse
12-09-2009, 07:17 AM
Why is there no "unsure" option.
A good question, especially since the thread title was posed in "question" form. You'd have though a thread presented in an interrogatory fashion would afford some/any "wiggle room" for respondents.

Bad Dog
12-09-2009, 07:42 AM
I wonder what role people played in the climate change of the Ice Age?


Good question. In the relatively temperate U.S. mid-Atlantic region, it's recently turned rather cold for outdoor tennis –so where is the global warming that politicians keep promising? :)

johanneskepler
12-09-2009, 08:02 AM
Good question. In the relatively temperate U.S. mid-Atlantic region, it's recently turned rather cold for outdoor tennis –so where is the global warming that politicians keep promising? :)

You need to know a bit of geography then ..Lets just name a few you may know of i hope:Bangladesh ,The Netherlands, Greenland, Tibet and the Himalayas, Kenya , The Maldives , Sudan .. i can go on ..

GW leads to freak weather so you may actually have experienced something of it in your region too at this time or another.

Now get dressed properly and get out there boy and whack them balls :)

drakulie
12-09-2009, 08:06 AM
Good question. In the relatively temperate U.S. mid-Atlantic region, it's recently turned rather cold for outdoor tennis –so where is the global warming that politicians keep promising? :)

Ah yes. I remember 20 some odd years ago, I purchased much "needed" winter clothes for the ICE AGE that was promised by these same fanatics. They remain in pristine condition and unused.

TENNISSLAVE
12-09-2009, 08:19 AM
Ah yes. I remember 20 some odd years ago, I purchased much "needed" winter clothes for the ICE AGE that was promised by these same fanatics. They remain in pristine condition and unused.

Good they are in good shape , unlike your logic.

drakulie
12-09-2009, 08:27 AM
^^Could you tell us all how humans were responsible for climate change **before** the use of fossil fuels??

Thanks in advance.

jswinf
12-09-2009, 09:27 AM
I'm surprised that the results of the poll are so close, I'd expect better of tennis folk. Maybe on the "tips/instruction" section when someone is "having trouble with my ...." I'll start responding "if you are a global warming denier you're probably not seeing the ball well due to having your head up your butt."

drakulie
12-09-2009, 09:50 AM
^^Could you tell us all how humans were responsible for climate change **before** the use of fossil fuels?? Or was it George Bush's fault?

Thanks in advance.

Smartbucks
12-09-2009, 10:07 AM
^^Could you tell us all how humans were responsible for climate change **before** the use of fossil fuels?? Or was it George Bush's fault?

Thanks in advance.

What time frame /how long back are you looking for .? Cambrian ?

Go to 13.59 into this video for a look back in time. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.html

drakulie
12-09-2009, 10:19 AM
^^^^ How were humans and the use of fossil fuels responsible for climate change back then?

also, what kind of cars did they drive?

Thanks in advance.

Smartbucks
12-09-2009, 10:21 AM
look at the video

malakas
12-09-2009, 10:21 AM
I don't believe they're the cause,because this phenomenon doesn't have a single cause.But they're probably one of the most important part.

drakulie
12-09-2009, 10:30 AM
look at the video


They had video back then???

origmarm
12-10-2009, 01:50 AM
Could you tell us all how humans were responsible for climate change **before** the use of fossil fuels?? Or was it George Bush's fault?

It was indeed George Bush :).

I feel it's an interesting point though so I thought I would comment.

On a serious note the comparison of today's climatic fluctuations with those of the past is fundamentally not valid. I have had this discussion with climatologists on both sides of the debate (via my close friend who is a leading Cambridge climatologist) and I have more or less concluded the following:

My understanding is that climate change did indeed exist long before humans and is recorded in the various rock strata and glacial levels that you can go and see today. In fact many believe it was responsible for the great evolutionary leaps that we are able to observe in fossil records and other artifacts today. For example the two ice ages more or less exactly correspond with the appearance of the first "intelligent ape" (as judged by brain size) and "h-o-m-o erectus" (first significant tool use and proper bipedal movement). Climate change by and large in the past has been a force for good as far as humans and many of the currently evolved species on the planet are concerned.

There are three main differences with today.

Firstly and most importantly the pace of the change. It's significantly faster than any species can evolve (except perhaps man via technology). This is clear and significantly largely undisputed by both sides of the debate.

Secondly it's the degree of human (i.e. not natural) intervention. By pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we are effectively pushing a change that is not in sync with the other elements of change usually present in large scale climate events. Typically climate events consist of several significant elements i.e. many things change at once. We are only moving one variable fairly dramatically.

Lastly the significance of an atmospheric (as distinct from a land based) driver for change is key as this fundamentally affects the whole planet rather than just areas. For example during the first real advance of the Northern Ice sheet, this is widely credited as being caused by the collision of what we now know as the Southern part of the American continent with the Northern Part. This cut off a key Equatorial warm current loop in the ocean. This loop then diverted towards the North, past the UK on the west and with it brought significant moisture North which, in the colder temperatures became ice etc...this warm current loop still exists today. Over time the earth had the capacity to (amongst other things) "rebalance" via atmospheric redistribution of moisture and we arrived at the current situation. As the change we are causing now is driven by atmospheric change, this key ability to "rebalance" is excluded.

So while I understand that climate change is not a recent phenomenon, it is the type and speed of the current change that is unique. Additionally I find it hard to believe that the nature of pumping billions of tons of effectively toxic gas into the atmosphere doesn't strike you as a bad thing. I believe that most people intuitively know it's not a good thing (like most pollution) but essentially don't want to accept that there is a consequence, whatever that may be.

For me the debate at the moment revolves not around the change taking place but whether we can effectively mitigate this change. My feeling given the above is that we can change the speed and the nature of the change but not stop it. I would suggest though that if we can change the speed and the nature of the change we can effectively change the impact on our society if not necessarily the planet as a whole.

Regards, Orig

dropshot winner
12-10-2009, 03:44 AM
It was indeed George Bush :).

I feel it's an interesting point though so I thought I would comment.

On a serious note the comparison of today's climatic fluctuations with those of the past is fundamentally not valid. I have had this discussion with climatologists on both sides of the debate (via my close friend who is a leading Cambridge climatologist) and I have more or less concluded the following:

My understanding is that climate change did indeed exist long before humans and is recorded in the various rock strata and glacial levels that you can go and see today. In fact many believe it was responsible for the great evolutionary leaps that we are able to observe in fossil records and other artifacts today. For example the two ice ages more or less exactly correspond with the appearance of the first "intelligent ape" (as judged by brain size) and "**** erectus" (first significant tool use and proper bipedal movement). Climate change by and large in the past has been a force for good as far as humans and many of the currently evolved species on the planet are concerned.

There are three main differences with today.

Firstly and most importantly the pace of the change. It's significantly faster than any species can evolve (except perhaps man via technology). This is clear and significantly largely undisputed by both sides of the debate.

Secondly it's the degree of human (i.e. not natural) intervention. By pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we are effectively pushing a change that is not in sync with the other elements of change usually present in large scale climate events. Typically climate events consist of several significant elements i.e. many things change at once. We are only moving one variable fairly dramatically.

Lastly the significance of an atmospheric (as distinct from a land based) driver for change is key as this fundamentally affects the whole planet rather than just areas. For example during the first real advance of the Northern Ice sheet, this is widely credited as being caused by the collision of what we now know as the Southern part of the American continent with the Northern Part. This cut off a key Equatorial warm current loop in the ocean. This loop then diverted towards the North, past the UK on the west and with it brought significant moisture North which, in the colder temperatures became ice etc...this warm current loop still exists today. Over time the earth had the capacity to (amongst other things) "rebalance" via atmospheric redistribution of moisture and we arrived at the current situation. As the change we are causing now is driven by atmospheric change, this key ability to "rebalance" is excluded.

So while I understand that climate change is not a recent phenomenon, it is the type and speed of the current change that is unique. Additionally I find it hard to believe that the nature of pumping billions of tons of effectively toxic gas into the atmosphere doesn't strike you as a bad thing. I believe that most people intuitively know it's not a good thing (like most pollution) but essentially don't want to accept that there is a consequence, whatever that may be.

For me the debate at the moment revolves not around the change taking place but whether we can effectively mitigate this change. My feeling given the above is that we can change the speed and the nature of the change but not stop it. I would suggest though that if we can change the speed and the nature of the change we can effectively change the impact on our society if not necessarily the planet as a whole.

Regards, Orig
Good post.

The poll result is kind of tragic.