- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you believe in global warming?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 7:02 am to olddawg26
Posted on 12/16/16 at 7:02 am to olddawg26
quote:
No one is gonna be elected in favor of slowing down the growth of the species.
Exactly and that's why we'll never see anything serious being done about GW because for political sakes no one will be willing to point the finger at the root cause of the problem.
0
Posted on 12/16/16 at 7:03 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:Insofar as fossil fuel is a nonrenewable resource, we need to be conservative where possible with its use. From a national security POV, energy independence is very important. Conservation aids in that goal.
But fossil fuel use is clearly part of the problem.
Aside from that, and specifically regarding US fossil fuel emissions, matter-of-fact science-is-settled assertions of climate impact are ridiculous.
This post was edited on 12/16/16 at 7:05 am
Posted on 12/16/16 at 7:15 am to rpg37
It's not a yes/no answer, or at least let's just say that it's misleading to suggest that a yes/no answer gets down to the meat of it. Do I think global warming occurs? Certainly, but it's the cause that is at the true heart of this debate, not really whether it occurs or not.
I fashion global warming to forest fires. You can argue they are natural, and you can argue they are man made by being careless or not allowing them to occur naturally and clean out the undergrowth which in turn causes much more damaging forest fires.
As far as global warming is concerned, Unless and until proven otherwise, I tend to side on the natural course, as I do not think we have had enough time on this planet to observe seasons the earth goes through, and attribute a bit too much influence over an entire planet to man, who occupies so very little of it. Volcanoes have more impact than man does and by an enormous amount at that. In short, I think earth is a whole lot more resilient than man would like to think it is, for if it can withstand millions of years of volcanic activity, it can certainly withstand your frickin hair spray and Ford F-150
I fashion global warming to forest fires. You can argue they are natural, and you can argue they are man made by being careless or not allowing them to occur naturally and clean out the undergrowth which in turn causes much more damaging forest fires.
As far as global warming is concerned, Unless and until proven otherwise, I tend to side on the natural course, as I do not think we have had enough time on this planet to observe seasons the earth goes through, and attribute a bit too much influence over an entire planet to man, who occupies so very little of it. Volcanoes have more impact than man does and by an enormous amount at that. In short, I think earth is a whole lot more resilient than man would like to think it is, for if it can withstand millions of years of volcanic activity, it can certainly withstand your frickin hair spray and Ford F-150
This post was edited on 12/16/16 at 7:20 am
Posted on 12/16/16 at 7:16 am to NC_Tigah
Here's a great site for those interested, that is full of unbiased and well documented science on the issue of global warming/climate change. A lot of information here, but it debunks and verifies the alarmists agenda...
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
This post was edited on 12/16/16 at 7:26 am
Posted on 12/16/16 at 7:58 am to goldennugget
quote:
I guess I am dumb then.
But lets play your game.
Let's say that all these scientists are right, and AGW is real.
How come every single fricking solution involves more government, more taxes, and less liberty? Every single one. And then you have the UN who say the only way to truly fight it is to have a world ruling body that governs climate change world wide(aka a new world order).
To me the debate about whether its real or not is meaningless. It's the proposed solutions that scare me.
Because the side who would come up with market based or more equitable solutions has decided not to participate in the solution at all and merely claims the whole damn thing is a ruse to destroy capitalism.
The same thing would happen if one side of the "what color is the sky" debate said it was green and the other side the sky didn't exist...we would never reach a consensus that it was blue...
I think global warming is real and I think we are making it worse...I don't think there is a hell of a lot we can do about it in the short term and I don't think there is as much urgency to do something as the left would have us believe.
I think that government spending on R&D is a helluva a good idea...going to the moon wasn't practical or necessary but the ancillary benefits are priceless...When we get to the point that China or Russia is about to eliminate their dependency on fossil fuels we are going to spend much more catching up and surpassing them (as we did in space) because we are too busy now debating whether we are going to spend the money at all...that is the beauty of a dictatorship like Russia or China...they don't ask permission....
So why don't we save a few bucks and do it now?
Posted on 12/16/16 at 1:04 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
until proven otherwise
Define this.
You mean after it's too late to do anything about it?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 3:26 pm to zeebo
quote:
I believe volcanic activity dwarfs man made whatever.
Well, that's great that you believe that to be the case. The problem is, you believing that doesn't change the fact that it absolutely, positively does not dwarf man-made carbon output. It's not even close:
quote:
Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 3:30 pm to Strophie
Booom
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:03 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I do not think we have had enough time on this planet to observe seasons the earth goes through, and attribute a bit too much influence over an entire planet to man, who occupies so very little of it.
Actually, we occupy all of it - from the top to the bottom.
To think that it is impossible for man to have had an impact on the atmosphere over the last 200 years is ridiculous. Add to the fact that the atmosphere itself represents quite a thin layer of habitability, and it becomes quite possible.
quote:
Volcanoes have more impact than man does and by an enormous amount at that. In short, I think earth is a whole lot more resilient than man would like to think it is, for if it can withstand millions of years of volcanic activity, it can certainly withstand your frickin hair spray and Ford F-150
Here is another, common, ridiculous argument. There was a time on Earth when there was little to no oxygen in the atmosphere, and the Earth was fine with that. The fact of the matter is that the Earth would be fine if there were no human beings on it at all. So if the volcanoes suddenly all erupted together and spewed the most noxious, toxic gasses possible, and to such an extent that it poisoned all of life as we know it - the earth would still be fine with that.
The point is NOT to protect the Earth and maintain the status quo for its own sake, the point is to maintain a habitable environment that we may live in.
The Chinese government doesn't industry can have any effect on air pollution either...
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:10 pm to Strophie
quote:
Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
So what's wrong with CO2?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:14 pm to rpg37
quote:Is the OP a climate scientist?
This is not a why vote, just a yes or no. Personally, I believe it is obvious
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Actually, we occupy all of it - from the top to the bottom.
We occupy it sparsely. The entire population of the earth could fit in an area the size of Texas and Arizona, living at the density that people live in New York City.
*Actually, it's just the state of Texas as of 2011.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:37 pm to BigOrangeVols
quote:Then why are warmists constantly asking if we believe in it or not?
Environmentalism isn't a religion
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:CO2 from fuels stands no chance of displacing enough oxygen to make the planent inhabitable.
The point is NOT to protect the Earth and maintain the status quo for its own sake, the point is to maintain a habitable environment that we may live in.
quote:Ironcially, the particulates in that photo all contribute to cooling.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:40 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:40 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Then why are warmists constantly asking if we believe in it or not?
Belief has nothing to do with it. It's whether the public at large understands it or not.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 6:42 pm to rpg37
The globe warms
The globe cools
Man has little impact
There is only so much carbon and so much oxygen available. Mankind cannot effect that. Its a zero sum game. Increases in the atmosphere, reduces the amounts from other areas, which result in a cyclical cooling
Its not really that hard of a concept
The globe cools
Man has little impact
There is only so much carbon and so much oxygen available. Mankind cannot effect that. Its a zero sum game. Increases in the atmosphere, reduces the amounts from other areas, which result in a cyclical cooling
Its not really that hard of a concept
Posted on 12/20/16 at 6:44 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Its not really that hard of a concept
Obviously it is, based on what you just argued.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:07 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Are you saying that effects on climate of some gas in the atmosphere is counteracted by the reduction of the gases original source, even if that source is in a different form and/or substance altogether?
Increases in the atmosphere, reduces the amounts from other areas, which result in a cyclical cooling
Regardless of one's stance on climate change, I've never heard either side make this argument--if I'm understanding it correctly.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 7:16 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Regardless of one's stance on climate change, I've never heard either side make this argument--
Makes you question their ability to reach a correct conclusion, unless they knowingly aren't feeding in all the info in order to model accurately?
Maybe that's why, NOT ONE climate model has accurately predicted what has actually occurred?
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News