What's new

Glo-Bull Warming and Science

You are an expert at missing the point.

How does 4.5 billion years of CO2 fit in with creationsm, Stump?
Creationism is a point bought up by you. You want to factor God into global warming, go talk religion. I even know that science and faith don't mix! I won't heat up an argument that is sure to start a fire.

The whole point of this thread before it took an US U-Turn is that unless we fix the global warming problem the aliens will destroy us. Maybe today's earthquake is only the beginning 🙄
 
The idea that 7 billion people along with all the buildings, waste, then add the loss of forestation, pollution in the water (just to mention a few things) does not have an effect on our climate is fool hardy in my opinion. How big an effect it has and will have is not certain.

Even if it does not have an effect on the climate (unlikely at best) how about the fact that asthma and other breathing disorders have sky rocketed? Water sources are being contaminated. Soil quality is being degraded. Unfortunately, nothing gets done in this country until it is too late. This country is reactive instead of proactive. How much is a human life worth. For republicans and business, not very much it would seem.
Asthma and other disorders have sky rocketed because we are living more unhealthier than ever. We are an obese nation. A human life is worth whatever the individual deems his importance. If you live an unhealthy lifestyle you will pay for it in your old age...and pass it on to your kids.

Watch Dr. Oz he speaks the truth about society's problems.
 
Asthma and other disorders have sky rocketed because we are living more unhealthier than ever. We are an obese nation. A human life is worth whatever the individual deems his importance. If you live an unhealthy lifestyle you will pay for it in your old age...and pass it on to your kids.

Watch Dr. Oz he speaks the truth about society's problems.
I have not heard about the asthma/obesity connection.
 
Creationism is a point bought up by you. You want to factor God into global warming, go talk religion. I even know that science and faith don't mix!

People who call creationsm 'science' should disqualify themselves from any other discusssions on science.
 
The idea that 7 billion people along with all the buildings, waste, then add the loss of forestation, pollution in the water (just to mention a few things) does not have an effect on our climate is fool hardy in my opinion. How big an effect it has and will have is not certain.

Even if it does not have an effect on the climate (unlikely at best) how about the fact that asthma and other breathing disorders have sky rocketed? Water sources are being contaminated. Soil quality is being degraded. Unfortunately, nothing gets done in this country until it is too late. This country is reactive instead of proactive. How much is a human life worth. For republicans and business, not very much it would seem.

Solar events are the driving force more than man......man made CO2 isn't enough to heat the oceans globally, only the sun could do that at that scale.....what man does vents into space more than heats the planet......Suck on a volcano and call me in the morning.

No doubt man has some impact on the environment....but it is of a lessor nature than the GW fake alarmists have been spewing.

Tell me, you spewed faith in the hockey stick graph like religion....what happened with that source? :lol:
 
The Facts

The Facts

The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change in recent years has generated increasing skepticism among the American public, especially as proposals to deal with the problem, such as reducing carbon emissions, have come with high price tags. But Perry is wrong to suggest that that skepticism has gained strength among scientists.

To the contrary, various surveys of climate researchers suggest growing acceptance, with as many as 98 percent believing in the concept of man-made climate change. A 2010 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which surveyed 1,372 climate researchers, is an example of this consensus. After all, it was first established in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could help create a “greenhouse effect.”

There have been similar studies by, among others, the United States Global Change Research Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, there are a few skeptics in the field, but even they generally do not question that human activity is warming the climate. A collection of statements by various scientific societies that support the consensus on climate change can be found here.
 
The question isn't whether or not humans contribute..............the question is how much and is it really a major contributing factor.

Climate change is an ongoing process.

Solar and volcanic activity are doing more than man at any given time.

And yes there is a political agenda.............
 
I understand not knowing how much damage man has done to the planet.

You stating as fact that nature has done more damage than man yet you have no supporting documentation to support that theory.

Even assuming your theory is true. How much less is the man made damage? Is the damage being caused by man the same type as the damage caused by nature? In other words, when man clear cuts a forest, is that the same as when nature killed off a forest? Is nature able to compensate when it makes an alteration as opposed to when man does it?

I contend that the changes that Nature makes can be is most cases compensated for. When man does it, nature has a much harder time of it.

Look at Mt St Hellens for example. The surrounding area was devastated after the eruption. Yes if you look at the area now there is already an abundance of life taking over. Then look at any metropolitan area. Man clear cut any and all vegetation, paved over about 50% or more. put up houses and buildings. Added all the Easter that goes along with that dense living environment. Nature cannot even get a foot hold until man disappears.

I know there are some cases when nature can out do man in damage. How ever I have seen nothing to indicate that what man does is any less damaging especially when we are doing it day in and day out. Nuclear waste, water contamination, soil erosion, air polution, just to mention a few. Even if these are not affection the climate they are affecting us. That alone is reason to make every effort to change our behavior.
 
I know there are some cases when nature can out do man in damage. How ever I have seen nothing to indicate that what man does is any less damaging especially when we are doing it day in and day out.

asteroid_impact.jpg


Yeah you're right about all that asphalt and so on........just terrible. What happened to all the forests around the Med?
 
The last major one was about 65 million years ago.

It's not a routine occurrence.

Some species were wiped out.

Earth climate was for ever changed.



Who is to say that the damage that man kind is causing every single day will not amount to a catastrophic change as well? If can take tens of thousands if not millions of years for the earth to heal it's self. Personally I would rather not take that chance (if it is not too late already) because we have no place else to go.

We can do nothing (your option) and hope that it will be OK but if it is not, we are screwed (big down side) or we can take preventative measures now to try an limit our impact. Worst case is we are wasting our time, best case is that the tree huggers were right and we get to spend a few more years on this rock. I think the down side of doing something far out weighs the down side of doing nothing.

The majority of science supports the fact that we are having a substantial impact on the planet.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top