tjamz;174382 wrote:
Ok....better set of questions then since pretty much everyone here agrees that weather is cyclical:

1. Has earth experienced ice ages in the past?YES

2. Did said ice ages likely have a major impact on the earths climate and creatures?YES

3. If we have had ice ages in the past, is it a safe bet that due to the cyclical nature of weather that we may have another in the future?YES

4. If we agree there is a likelihood of another ice age somewhere in the future, is it not in the best interest of the human race to take measures to at least try and counter it?Definately

5. Is there any chance Torbs will answer any of these questions without twisting the questions into something political?lol

1. Has earth experienced ice ages in the past?

2. Did said ice ages likely have a major impact on the earths climate and creatures?

3. If we have had ice ages in the past, is it a safe bet that due to the cyclical nature of weather that we may have another in the future?

4. If we agree there is a likelihood of another ice age somewhere in the future, is it not in the best interest of the human race to take measures to at least try and counter it?

5. Is there any chance Torbs will answer any of these questions without twisting the questions into something political?

MisterCMK;174042 wrote:
I think that we all should stop killing mother earth. I mean honestly, we're digging our own grave. :nonono:

-/stir
Actions speak louder than words! The problem I have with listening to half of these Greenpeace activists and extreme left wing liberals is that they preach one thing and do another. Most of them are all hippocrates.
I hate calling Chris out, but he throws out a statement like that and he himself drives around a V8 car, and also cut the cats off on said car to make more noise and to go faster. If he truly believed the bullshit he said, he would sell the Mustang, quit racing and buy a zero or ultra-low emissions car.
That is the problem with Al Gore’s big “mission” to get the word out. He is another big hippocrate. Someone stated he is just a “messenger”. Well… I wouldn’t listen to a preacher that was molesting the Sunday school kids in the back room, and I sure as hell wouldn’t listen to what that guy has to say either.
Another problem I have with these claims is that there is always “fact twisting”. I get rather annoyed reading through facts that have been twisted to make something look worse than it actually is and I found that in a couple areas on global warming websites and reports on a project I did back in college. One such area compared how globally our temperature had warmed 1 degree over a stretch of 29 years from 1963 to 1992 versus a stretch of 29 years from 1888 and 1917. It did not show any data between those year blocks which accounts for 46 years between 1917 and 1963. Just because one stretch of 29 years is 1 degree warmer then another stretch of 29 years does not in any way to me raise any flag of concern. 29 years is an odd block of data to test in the first place, and not showing any data between those years and around those years does not give you the whole picture.
IMO, we are just in another one of Earth’s many temperature cycles… but if there is a large group of people out there that doesn’t want to cause any more pollution and help out the cause… so be it. Go take some action and do something about it in your “own” life… and quit telling other people how they should run their lives.
-/end stir

DaveH;174170 wrote:
IMO he was trying to appear neutral while making the case for global warming. His grid was way over simplistic (can you really call it a grid if there is only 4 boxes? :icon_cyclops: ), but IMO the whole premise is flawed. You could say the same thing about driving your car every day. There is a chance you could be in a car wreck and be killed each time you go for a drive. You can either A) do nothing and hope you don't get in a wreck and be killed, or you can B) install a roll cage, wear a fire suit, full body armor, a helmet, etc each time you go for a drive. The chances of getting injured wearing all that gear would next to nothing, but in reality it doesn't make sense to go through all those safety measures. There are probably a lot better analogies than the car wreck, but I thought it was most appropriate for this forum.

The difference between car driving vs. global warming/ice age is this:

Statistics show most of us drive cars, that most of us will be in an accident, but that the accident will not be severe and modern safety equipment will save the majority of us.

Also, statistics show that iceages are cyclical, its not if its when one will happen, and if nothing is done to try and offset it (not saying it can be offset, but pulling out the ol' ostrich move is worthless as well...pretending it can't happen, doesn't mean it won't), there will be major problems affecting the lives of everyone on earth...modern advances won't be enough to slow/delay it, but like everything, the tech will advance (look at the efficiency of a gasoline engine and how it has advanced in the past 100 years) to the point where some day it may become semi-efficient and affective..

I understand the controversy.

But I think you also cannot deny that man's recent growth and industry has NO effect on our environment.

It may not be our fault, but its not like we're helping anything environmentally.

3_Series;174192 wrote:
With the many thousands of ice core samples, scientists can make pretty good estimates of the climate of the past (atmosphere trapped in tiny bubbles as new ice was formed on top of old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core)).).)

Yes, they are estimates. Again, there are a TON of assumptions being made. They assume that the earth's atmosphere was similar to how it is now, they assume they can estimate time based on the depth of the ice, carbon dating, etc, etc.

3_Series;174192 wrote:
You are saying that we had little/nothing to do with the rapid changes present over the past 200 years? I'm not saying that the climate doesn't fluctuate naturally, obviously it does, but it's hard to dismiss the recent trends mostly/purely on nature alone.

I don't know, don't pretent to know. I simply do not trust these scientific arguments because 99% of the time they are tilted one way or another depending on that scientists perspective. They can predict these terrible things are going to happen, and "whaalaa" they get a big government paycheck to figure out what we can do to avaid these terrible things. What happened to the global cooling that everyone was worried about back in the 70's?

I would not call it rapid change. I look at the weather when my folks were growing up vs now (60 years or so) and there sure isn't a noticable difference. I can talk to my grandparents and in the last 80-90 years there isn't a noticable difference in weather. (sure, there are cycles: drought, floods, etc). If you go back any farther than when man was actually recording the weather data then you might as well be licking your finger and putting it to the wind.

DaveH;174191 wrote:
The thing is, you are assuming scientists are guessing correctly at the temperature, CO2 concentrations, etc that were around 1000 years ago. Ok, assuming they are correct (which is a stretch IMO), these statistics can and usually are manipluated to make things look the way the particular individual/corporation wants. Most of the CO2/temperature charts actually show that CO2 concentrations "follow" the temperature fluctuations, they don't precede it.

With the many thousands of ice core samples, scientists can make pretty good estimates of the climate of the past (atmosphere trapped in tiny bubbles as new ice was formed on top of old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core)))).

You are saying that we had little/nothing to do with the rapid changes present over the past 200 years? I'm not saying that the climate doesn't fluctuate naturally, obviously it does, but it's hard to dismiss the recent trends mostly/purely on nature alone.

3_Series;174190 wrote:
< snip> Funny little thing that Industrial Revolution...

The thing is, you are assuming scientists are guessing correctly at the temperature, CO2 concentrations, etc that were around 1000 years ago. Ok, assuming they are correct (which is a stretch IMO), these statistics can and usually are manipluated to make things look the way the particular individual/corporation wants. Most of the CO2/temperature charts actually show that CO2 concentrations "follow" the temperature fluctuations, they don't precede it.

Funny little thing that Industrial Revolution...

tjamz;174026 wrote:
Please watch video before posting your opinion. I myself am not 100% convinced about global warming being man made, but I tend to agree with what the guy in the video is talking about:

Watch Me!
Interesting video
fallguy;174182 wrote:
I'm a believer in the literal Genesis creation of the world. I don't believe it's been around for millions and billions of years, but thousands. I believe we were created and put in charge of the earth to use it as we like, but also to be good stewards of what we were given.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-caused-global-warming

I believe alot of that websites views.
I agree
The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.
Obama '08

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-caused-global-warming

I believe alot of that websites views.

tjamz;174139 wrote:
See, I feel he was making the case that there might be global warming. I'm mostly interested in your take on his way of presenting it though and the columns vs rows aspect of it along with his conclusions. If you disagree with his conclusion that one of 4 things can happen, point out the flaw in his reasoning. Whether he is/isn't arguing about man made global warming is not the issue, the issue is what happens if we do/don't act on it. He pretty much nailed it (in a nutshell) imho.

I feel you are better off preparing for the worst as opposed to hoping for the best.

I feel you are better off preparing for the worst as opposed to hoping for the best.

I'm surprised the voting is as close as it is.

torbs;174091 wrote:
i dont think i can take anything seriously from somebody who thinks they created the internet and who owns a house that uses i believe 20x more energy than the average american home...

I think his energy bill is something like $30, 000 a year or something close to it.
He contradicts himself by saying we have to use less energy and then using 20x the national average to power his estate, whether he's just stating information from other sources or not he's still a hipocrate.

That's like preaching to somebody about how bad smoking cigarettes are and then selling them a pack afterwards.

On a side note: If I remember right, during the last major ice age the average global temperature was less than 2 degrees F lower than it is now. Ice core samples from Antarctica showed that the levels of CO2 were much higher then than they are now. I don't doubt that the Earth is warming up, but I don't think that CO2 from humans is the main reason why.

torbs;174065 wrote:
Umm...how can you say we are very small part then say if you don't do anything it could be catastrophic...sounds like you know what the truth is (humans don't really have a big impact on global climate change) however you take in the far left agenda that if we do not do something, we are all gonna die...

Those two things together don't jive...

I'm all for keeping emmissions down to a minimum...but shit people, be realfuckingistic about this. We could stop driving cars and not pollute at all and it would have a minimal impact on the climate...

God forbid the earth be in one of its MANY cycles :icon_cheers:

Learn to read torbs, I said we had little to do with CAUSING global warming, but I believe honestly there are things we can do to counteract the NATURAL course of global warming. At some point in the future (not sure how near/far) there will be another ice age that will have a catastrophic affect on the world we live in, whether we cause it or not is debatable, but what IF there was something we could do to prevent it aside from bio-fuels, etc... What if we had technology that could reduce the CO2 in the air (natural or man made)? Is that not worth investing in now, to help prevent something catastrophic in the future?

The alternative is to do nothing and let nature take its course, but that would be entirely against human nature. We control the environment (or try) all the time in crop production (chemicals, fertilizer, irrigation, etc...) if we didn't do that, the world would be hurting as there would not be abundant cheap food available and we would probably experience world-wide famine. You wouldn't want that now, right? Of course not! So why would you not want to help prevent another catastrophe...again, not necessarily a man made disaster. Why not invest in the technology to clean the air and stabilize the CO2 levels so that they do not elevate to excessive levels? The example that Gary presented w/ the algae is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

If that is the "Far-Left" agenda, I'd suggest you look at the far left some more as Gore is WAAAAAAAAAY further left on this issue than me. Of course, Torbs will probably respond saying that only a liberal would think that another ice age will happen (regardless of humans causing it or not)