Global Warming is fake (Page 4)

Burgess11
Burgess11: I'm not sure Global Warming is the point. Whether or not it is caused by us or not,...whether or not it is happening or not...none of that is the point. Living conservatively, consciously, and respectfully to all things is the best way to live. We recycle not because we have to...not because one more tin can is going to make the earth stop moving...we do it because we can.

Because we posses the ability to restore and reuse and so if we are conservative (in our living) conscious (in our use), and respectful (in our approach)...then we are doing what we can.

God is green and He expects us to conservatively, consciously, and respectfully live our lives in the way we interact with ourselves, others, and His gift of this earth.
www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com/
14 years ago Report
0
oooREDEYEooo
oooREDEYEooo:

'HOT OFF THE PRESS'

..."the global warming debate used to be debated on Venus a long long long time ago"...

oooHUMANS-ARE-SICKENING-EYEooo
14 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: y lets vaporise 80percent of us we could have a brave new world
14 years ago Report
0
brettsanderson
brettsanderson: BP IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST FUNDERS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE CARBON EXCHANGE, BP AND GOLDMAN SACHS SOLD MASS AMOUNTS OF BP STOCKS BEFORE RIG EXPLODED, ALSO HALIBURTON BOUGHT A OIL CLEAN UP COMPANY WEEKS BEFORE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED THAT ENDED UP GETTING THE CONTRACT TO SPRAY CORREXIT 9500 ALL OVER THE GULF. THESE ARE THE SAME FOLKS THAT YOU WILL PAY YOUR CARBON CREDITS TO AND BE RULED. NWO ENVIRONMENTAL BAIT AND SWITCH, PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION. WAKE UP!
14 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: BP funds renewables so it can get its hands on the patents and sit on them.These patents are a threat to the fossil fuel giants.BP has been actively doing this for 50 years.
14 years ago Report
0
Belle_Sunshine
Belle_Sunshine: Nothing to see here. Post deleted by user.
13 years ago Report
0
Kid Icarus
Kid Icarus: Anyone who posts here has just been trolled.
Please do not feed the trolls.
13 years ago Report
0
quigley
quigley: you people are really getting sucked in. do you really think the rich controllers are going to change their habits? we all turn off our little lightbulbs and they prance around the world on jets spewing slime into the atmosphere and tell us we should do more..............what a con job
13 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: So whats your solution?
13 years ago Report
0
Wordofmouthjewels
Wordofmouthjewels: I read an interesting article on global warming in relation to solar activity - it references temperature increases on jupiter... it really gave me pause since clearly nothing we are doing could effect jupiter. I dont doubt that things are getting hotter, I am originally from Canada and remember when every Christmas was freezing, while the past few years I have seen green (well ok brown) Christmases more and more....
13 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: only solution i can figure is more transparency, using things like the internet and good journalism ie. john pilger making ppl aware of what really goes on.

then, still its a battle against our own apathy, which has been paramount in things not getting done and an excellent device against us little people.
13 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: btw weve been having the coldest winters for decades here in uk.

i cant remember a single white xmas in 35 years but its looking like were having one this year
13 years ago Report
0
quigley
quigley: my solution is that there must be a problem to solve in the first place. did you ever notice we must be scared about something? no rain and it is disaster, too much rain and it is disaster. we cannot just have a flood or a drought anymore. keep the masses terrified and you can control them very easily. this is all about control and making money. they predict 6 cyclones for queensland this year oh be scared out of our poor little pea brains. what would these forecasters know about the future of the weather, as much as you and i............nothing. one might as well believe in the tooth fairy.
13 years ago Report
0
quigley
quigley: so my solution is saluted?
13 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: An interesting thing to read:


Cows burp, fart and excrete an extraordinary amount of methane in their lives. Depending on the type of cow and their diet, anywhere between 100 and 200 litres of methane a day can be expelled from a single animal. This is particularly problematic for countries which herd a lot of livestock.

India has a livestock population of approximately 485 million, which pump out an astonishing 11.75 million metric tons of methane gas each year. In New Zealand, cow excretions of methane account for 32 per cent of all of the country's GHG emissions. Transportation in New Zealand is much less of a problem, responsible for 20 per cent of gas emissions.

When you take into account that methane gas traps 20 times more heat than CO2, the cow burping problem is a serious issue to consider in the fight for climate change. The problem is also set to get worse before it gets better. India is already the world's largest producer of milk and will have to increase production by 80 per cent over the next two years in order to keep pace with growing demand.

...btw Global Warming is a reality. Who wants to start riding to work on a bike? Who wants to go vegan? (think on those as a personal questions) <-that's also a reality.
13 years ago Report
0
quigley
quigley: hi caveman

has anyone ever done a test to see how much gas humans pump out, with around six billion of us here on this mudball it must be enormous. are we the problem?
13 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: hey Quig,
I think the issue was the methane contained in the 'gas' based on the diet of the animal..hmm I don't know what human 'gas' contains...
I don't think its harmful. But yes, you are right, we are the problem, since we're the ones who're producing the animals as cows etc in larger numbers than what they'd naturally be...
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: Initial post of this thread:

"It's just a story Al Gore made up one day while he was bored taking a dump. I believe the polar bears are doing just fine. My grass is green in the backyard so what's the problem? I see no proof in the world melting. I'll just go fly to mars if this happens."

That just might be the single stupidest post in the history of Wireclub.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: We have another contender ...
13 years ago Report
0
VanWinkel
VanWinkel: We have scientists saying it's real and we have scientists saying it isn't. I have no idea if it's real or not but I would prefer to be on the safe side. Let's rather take measures to prevent it until we are positive of whether it is real or not. If it turns out to be false then we would have screwed up the economy a bit, but we'll survive. If it turns out to be real and we do nothing, well, we all know what'll happen then. Think Hollywood disaster movie. It's not worth the risk IMO. Be safe until sure is my motto when it comes to our entire future as a species.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: ( Note: for the sake of brevity, I have used the phrase "climate change" to denote "human caused climate change due to production and introduction into the environment of carbon." )


When it comes to highly technical subjects, particularly when they are of a scientific nature, and when especially when experts in those fields of knowledge voice disagreement amongst themselves, unless you personally have the years of training and experience, it really comes down to choosing who you believe, and who you don't.

So what is a good, rational basis for us laymen to make such a decision?

How do you decide to either believe in the scientists that warn us that climate change is a real, tangible danger, or the scientists that say that it's all a bunch of overblown, unproven hype?

I can think of two good indications of credibility for a circumstance such as this:

A. Look to the numbers. Are there a great deal of scientists on one side of the argument, while only a handful on the other?

Let's look at an example:

There are actual bonafide scientists that will actually tell you from a scientific perspective that the story of Noah's Ark is the literal truth. However, they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by other scientists that will argue that Noah's Ark is an entertaining parable, and has no basis in scientific reality.

B. Look to who the scientists work for. Do they work for universities, for research organizations, etc. Or do they work for corporations with a financial stake in the issue, or organizations that promote those corporations?

Let's look at an example: American tobacco producers and the lobbying groups that support them have troops of actual bonafide scientists on their payrolls that will argue from a scientific perspective that there is no harm from the product their companies sell. Of course, all scientists associated with medical associations, research groups, insurance companies, etc. will strongly dispute that.

Now let's apply these requisites to the issue of climate change:

A. While there are scientists that scoff at the concept of climate change, they are in the overwhelming minority. Essentially every single major scientific and academic organization in the world has accepted the concept of climate change as fact.

B. Within that small minority of scientist that do not accept the concept of climate change, the overwhelming majority of them are in the employ of corporations that have direct economic benefits from the release of carbon into the environment.

I'm no scientist. I have to accept someone's word about it. That is how I base my opinion on the matter.
13 years ago Report
0
VanWinkel
VanWinkel: Where did you get those numbers from though SITS (can I call you that, other people seem to). I'm not disputing you I'm just curious. If that is really the case, if the majority of scientists believe it to be true, I can't see why this debate is even still happening. I was under the impression that it was a hotly debated within the scientific community but, I'm ashamed to admit, I haven't really researched it. I took my position of 'saftey first until solid proof' a while ago. I agree with you though.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
That link convinces me that we should at least take action now in case it is true. Like I said earlier, the worst that happens if they're wrong is that we damage the economy. If they're right however....
13 years ago Report
0
oooREDEYEooo
oooREDEYEooo:

! 'WHAT NEXT' !


NEWS ARTICLE:

'MALAYSIA TO BATTLE SMOG WITH CYCLONES'

by Chen May Yee, Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.

KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July.

'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment.

The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air.

The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said.

A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone.

Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism.

'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'.

Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work.

oooPURCHASE-A-CYCLONE-FOR-CHRISTMAS-EYEooo

PS : '...more research to this claim very much needed...'
13 years ago Report
0
Comrade_
Comrade_: I guess to some, ignorance is most blissful..but the problem doesn't go away if you ignore it.
13 years ago Report
0
StuckInTheSixties
StuckInTheSixties: VanWinkel, frankly, I've forgotten exactly what the wiki article is that presented a HUGE list of the scientific and academic organizations that have endorsed the concept of climate change, and I'm about to go to bed, as it's quarter after two in the morning. But it was pretty indisputable.

I think a comparison of Google searches, one for "scientific organizations endorsing climate change," and another for "scientific organizations disputing climate change" would be pretty revealing.
13 years ago Report
0