Actually, I don't believe that global warming is a crock. I actually believe that there is more evidence to support it than not. But I would like to know, what do you think? and why? I am totally open to those disagreeing with me, I just want to hear the evidence that backs your opinions
Global warming is a crock
- Login to post comments
I've never understood why we as people need to make 5000 new plastic cups every year or why we need to make thousands of new cars every year. They don't sell that fast and where do all these cars end up when no one buys them. In the recycling bin if you will. Sitting in lots rusting away. What a waste. No wonder we are in a economic crunch.
So keep using those hairsprays and spray deodrants and spray cleaners etc etc and fill up our air and warm up the Earth.
The reason that things like this are made is because people will buy them and pay money for them, and as an industry it is profitable. Even if plenty of cars don't get sold (though they almost always are, even if it's deeply discounted), they can sell enough to make money, though recently that has all changed. Your vote is ENTIRELY based upon what you buy. I don't think enough people realize how much the world is driven by money, and not necessarily in a bad way. You presidential and government votes honestly barely count for shit, but the things yous pend money on, coffee, makeup, cars, clothes, food, etc. all basically is an indicator to the rest of the world that, we, as a people, want this particular product or lifestyle and are willing to give up what we have for it, and there will always be someone else there to meet that demand.
However, few people realize the immense amount of time, effort, and resources that go into sustaining almost every aspect of our american lifestyles. Almost everything we do impacts things in some way or another, and despite nearly everyone's urge to save the environment, few people know HOW to do it, or event hose that do realize how impractical and difficult it can really be.
To actually start making any kind of a change it would take huge numbers of people suddenly deciding to basically live in large communes, buying almost nothing, eating and living and entirely sustenence farmed vegan food, not driving, not buying basically anything besides complete necessities, and much much more.
But how can you convince anyone but the most devoted to do this, who are already doing it? It requires such a drastic lifestyle change that few can do it. How can you support a family if you cannot commute to work? How can you get a job that falls in line with these ideas? Regardless of your views on the ethics eating meat, there are huge problems with meat manufacturing. Pig, cattle, and chicken farms pollute MASSIVE amounts of nitrogenous wastes and urea into the surrounding areas, making them almost unlivable. They are hands down one of the biggest factors of pollution in the world.
But people love to eat meat, it's natural, man has been eating meat for thousands of years, and that is not likely to change. Change is a slow, difficult, expensive process, and there is always resistance.
I study this because I care and want to change things, but even I, someone feels extremely well educated on the subject, has a lot of difficulty coming up with good solutions and answers to the problem.
I will say this, it will be getting MUCH worse very soon. The world sees us as an example. We lead wonderful, peaceful, comfortable lives, that we take for granted. Much of the rest of the world struggles for food, clothes, water, transportationa nd more. They are trying their hardest to live the SAME way that we do, and if even half the world lived the same way we do, the world would come screeching to a halt in months.
do you know that the surface temperatures of mars and venus have both risen ~0.5 degrees C in the last 10 years also?
Just to point out, spraying hairspray and other CFC's into the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. They deplete the ozone layer; global warming is caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases within our atmosphere, which in turn heats our atmosphere and planet. And yes, global warming is a real problem.
Just to point out, spraying hairspray and other CFC's into the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. They deplete the ozone layer; global warming is caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases within our atmosphere, which in turn heats our atmosphere and planet. And yes, global warming is a real problem.
I'm glad someone else understands this.
hasn't it already been established that there are about five other imminent environmental calamities that will end up killing us all quite some time before Global Warming will?
What exactly are those imminent dangers, and dont you think it would be in everyones best interest to try and prevent all of them? Including global warming?
Just to point out, spraying hairspray and other CFC's into the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. They deplete the ozone layer; global warming is caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases within our atmosphere, which in turn heats our atmosphere and planet. And yes, global warming is a real problem.
I'm glad someone else understands this.
Well, if there is less ozone more UV light enters our atmosphere. More UV=More heat.
So it is kind of related. Not because CFCs are the cause of 'Global Warming', but they do cause the earth to warm.
Well nice responses.
Just want to point out a few things. Some people are obsessed with buying new cups and plastic ware every year for their parties and such. I know a few.
Just to point out, spraying hairspray and other CFC's into the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. They deplete the ozone layer; global warming is caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases within our atmosphere, which in turn heats our atmosphere and planet. And yes, global warming is a real problem.
As far as this statement goes; Yes it deplets the ozone layer but they also put particles into the air in which moisture condenses around forming rain clouds thus increasing the cloud cover over the Earth. Not to mention pouring down acid rain which can be toxic.
Yes, people need to buy things. But they don't need to buy things in huge quantites. I don't buy new christmas lights every year. I don't buy a new car every year. You need to do more research. Have you ever seen the lots where the un bought cars are place in? Thousands of cars just sitting there. I have seen them. Go visit detroit.
Money isn't everything. Its a concept that has been used to motivate people. There are lots of ways to motivate people to do great things besides money.
I know people who have dish sets for every holiday, every special occasion, and almost every day of the year. There is no reason for this.
I live a very comfortable lifestyle and I do not buy tons of stuff. So your statement on time and effort to sustain our lifestyle is a crock. Society has programmed us to think that way. Spend money, make the other guy rich while doing little work while the machines punch out thousands of goods that end up in the dollar store or in the dump.
We don't need to move into communes to start the process of saving the Earth. Education will help. Changing the rules about how much goods really need to be produced. Tell me this, why do so many products need to be placed on a 12x12 inch piece of cardboard when a 1 inch square would do?
I feel you need to do some more research into why, how things are done. I've been there. I have worked in places like this and I know and see the waste and its totally stupid.
Thanks for your comments. Let's change the world together and be rich....LOLL
depletion of natural resources, overpopulation, deforestation, the dire state of our oceans, and we're certainly due for another game-breaking pandemic.
this isn't even to mention nuclear proliferation.
And of course it would be in our best interest to prevent all of these, but something being in our best interest and something being within our control are two entirely different things. this is why we put so much weight on global warming - it's America's favorite pet movement because we can feel like we're holding off our inevitable doom with quantifiable carbon credits.
this is why i do not have an EGR valve (exhaust gas recirculation) or a catalytic converter on my cars! car runs so much better and has freed up some more power...now hitting boost is really funnn. i love pouring hydrocarbons into the atmoshpere
elminate emission controls=better flow=more fun
Obviously we should take care of the planet and recycle and not cut down forests; it's true that we have responsibility to keep our world healthy. But I don't think we are solely responsible for global warming. After all, there has been massive climate change in the past... Ice Age, anyone? and are we in an Ice Age anymore? Well, it seems that the earth has experienced global warming before, and I don't think we can give ourselves the credit for that one.
So yeah, I just get tired of people cursing humanity and its wasteful ways for "causing" global warming. I won't say we haven't contributed, but to the extent of being its sole cause? I don't think so.
this has been enlightening. You are all not smart. Do some simple reading about global warming. This is a college, it seems like people would be somewhat knowledgeable about issues like this. i guess not.
this has been enlightening. You are all not smart. Do some simple reading about global warming. This is a college, it seems like people would be somewhat knowledgeable about issues like this. i guess not.
"you all are not smart" made me laugh. Besides that, terrible post. It didn't contribute at all.....I actually still don't know what your position on global warming is. I sense that you feel it is a problem of some kind, but I still can't be sure.
Anyway, from my understanding, most people in the scientific community agree that global warming is occurring, but the controversy is whether or not humans are contributing to it. I'm still ignorant about the specifics of the issue, but I do know that it takes a lot of research to get credible evidence either way, as there is not much data that is absolutely 100% unbiased. I haven't had a debate in such a long time I don't know about any recent developments :-/ I do know that one side stands to make a lot more money if the outcome is a certain way........
This whole thread which is made to be controversial is rather amusing. Global warming is real, CFC's and ozone depletion are a different topic all together and the US doesn't even use them anymore, have skin cancer due to ozone depletion blame India and China and the other countries that do not regulate CFCs. Global warming is caused by CO2, CH4 and other green house emissions that escape into the atmosphere and bond with H20 to trap heat. Because the heat is unable to escape to space, it reflects back onto the earth surface, causing warming. Many people do not believe that the human race is the cause for this phenomenon, but the simple fact is more carbon emissions have been let into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution than in any other time in history. Yes the Earth has climatic changes, but even if this is just a "cycle" there is no other recorded cycle in the history of the rock and ice record. Some believe that the cause is solar flares because of the increase in Venus and Mars overall temperature, but the key is our atmosphere is supposed to protect us from this.
I am not saying that people should hug trees and not buy new items but just have some civic responsibility. Besides it saves money to recycle, it keeps garbage out of the landfills so people have more soil to build their $500k spec homes. Keep your car in working order change the fuel filter, oil filter, ect., once again it hits at the bottom line, it saves you money. Agree or Disagree it does not matter to me, but if you just read "Thin Ice" by Mark Bowen, or hear climatologist Dr. Julienne Stroeve of the NSIDC speak on the global ice caps, you may have a different outlook on things.
... it's just god hugging us a little tighter!
To actually start making any kind of a change it would take huge numbers of people suddenly deciding to basically live in large communes, buying almost nothing, eating and living and entirely sustenence farmed vegan food, not driving, not buying basically anything besides complete necessities, and much much more.
I don't think we would need anything drastic such as this. Just try to imagine all the people in the world. Now imagine if they all did something little at first, such as recycling plastic, glass, aluminum, etc. The shear reduction due to the amount of people doing it would already be a great start. I don't think anybody can use this as an excuse not to make a difference.
this has been enlightening. You are all not smart. Do some simple reading about global warming. This is a college, it seems like people would be somewhat knowledgeable about issues like this. i guess not.
"simple reading about global warming" is exactly what contributes to the most legendarily idiotic opinions about it.
Does anyone want to explain how if global warming is real its been getting colder for the last 8 years? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Also: please explain the global cooling scare of 1950!! Look I'm all for saving the environment and such, you just cant perpetrate lies to do this because it SCARES PEOPLE!!
Does anyone want to explain how if global warming is real its been getting colder for the last 8 years? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Also: please explain the global cooling scare of 1950!! Look I'm all for saving the environment and such, you just cant perpetrate lies to do this because it SCARES PEOPLE!!
"Global warming" is kind of the pop-culture term for what is happening. A better name is actually "global climate change" since certain areas of the world will heat up or cool depending on TONS of things: air flow, ocean currents, solar radiation reflection, etc...
Does anyone want to explain how if global warming is real its been getting colder for the last 8 years? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Also: please explain the global cooling scare of 1950!! Look I'm all for saving the environment and such, you just cant perpetrate lies to do this because it SCARES PEOPLE!!
"Global warming" is kind of the pop-culture term for what is happening. A better name is actually "global climate change" since certain areas of the world will heat up or cool depending on TONS of things: air flow, ocean currents, solar radiation reflection, etc...
So we should be scared why? Because YOU (any global warming supporter) can't predict the weather? I could have told you that. So quit trying to pass your scare tactic, tax-the-middle-class cap-and-trade bullshit. HOW MANY CARBON CREDITS DO I HAVE TO BUY TO BREATHE AND FART MOTHERFUCKER??!! FUCK I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS. You people. And maybe I'm being unfair here, because people seem to be really reasonable and open minded at Western. So if I offended you, well too bad.
And now for a little Michael Crichton for perspective :
Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done.
When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?
To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.
I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.
But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilities could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.
The answer to all these questions is no. We don't.
Does anyone want to explain how if global warming is real its been getting colder for the last 8 years? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it? Also: please explain the global cooling scare of 1950!! Look I'm all for saving the environment and such, you just cant perpetrate lies to do this because it SCARES PEOPLE!!
"Global warming" is kind of the pop-culture term for what is happening. A better name is actually "global climate change" since certain areas of the world will heat up or cool depending on TONS of things: air flow, ocean currents, solar radiation reflection, etc...
So we should be scared why? Because YOU (any global warming supporter) can't predict the weather? I could have told you that. So quit trying to pass your scare tactic, tax-the-middle-class cap-and-trade bullshit. HOW MANY CARBON CREDITS DO I HAVE TO BUY TO BREATHE AND FART MOTHERFUCKER??!! FUCK I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS. You people. And maybe I'm being unfair here, because people seem to be really reasonable and open minded at Western. So if I offended you, well too bad.
How the air current works in the nothern US is that now when the summers are warming, more air rises and moves north in the summer. This allows a larger volume of cold air to move south in the winter, making it much colder. (the cell in the southern US works in the opposite direction.) Here is a depiction of that: http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/050606/images/lg_wind.jpg
So ignoring the issue of global warming completely, I have to ask, what would be the problem with having a carbon tax on companies? You may not know this, but world oil production peaked three years ago and now is in decline. Yet the quantity of oil being used every year is increasing, and we have already begun to see resource wars (the Iraq war). The economy has not readily adjusted to this fact, and probably won't for a while. If America wants to maintain the spot of top economic country, we need to be the ones who create and own the next wave of energy resources (my bet is on algae based oil for an alternative to petroleum). Having a carbon tax would increase the speed at which these innovations are made, would make the ecconomy more energy efficient, and probably allow for more local businesses to emerge because they would not have to deal with the high costs of shipping goods.
How does a carbon tax violate your rights? Do you think that the right of companies to do whatever they want is directly tied to your individual rights? I tend to think the opposite, that the government having the ability to stop businesses from burning through gas until there is none for me protects my ability to live how I want.
I'll just toss a bit more on the fire here. You can make statistics say anything you want depending on how you manipulate them so that is not necessarily the best leg to stand on for either side of this discussion. However, for those saying it is getting colder instead of warmer, that is really odd as the northwest passage is opening, it will soon be open for long enough each year to be a viable commercial route for a few months each year. Odd, if it was getting colder the glaciers would be getting larger and thicker not thinner.
Global climate change is complicated, involving weather, ocean currents, industrial inputs, solar weather, and many other issues that make "global warming" a misnomer. To understand the incredibly fast changes our planet is undergoing at this point in time might be understood to some degree if you brought together scientists of every ilk, oceanographers, ecologists, astronomers, meteorologists, geologists and many, many more, a sort of international consortium that could bring to bear so much brain power, and processing power as to have some idea how to solve or compensate for our issues. It isn't just consumerism, oil, carbon dioxide, methane, or any of it, some of it is likely natural, and much manmade but is it too late to change what is happening, who knows?
who knows?
We don't really know what will happen. All the statistics don't mean squat because we have no statistical data for the current atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
I have yet to hear from a scientist who is interested in scaring anyone. They are all concerned that we might be performing a massive global chemistry experiment of which there is no written procedure. Maybe it is man made, maybe it is not. The fact is we are putting chemicals into our atmosphere and we would be stupid not to monitor this. We would also be stupid to ignore the climate changes that we are experiencing if it was completely based on natural cycles.
anyway. I hope my plants get enough sun this week...
Anyway, from my understanding, most people in the scientific community agree that global warming is occurring, but the controversy is whether or not humans are contributing to it. I'm still ignorant about the specifics of the issue, but I do know that it takes a lot of research to get credible evidence either way, as there is not much data that is absolutely 100% unbiased. I haven't had a debate in such a long time I don't know about any recent developments :-/ I do know that one side stands to make a lot more money if the outcome is a certain way........
I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the scientific community is in agreement that CLIMATE change is real. Its the PUBLIC that believes there is a debate amongst the scientific community over it.
- Login to post comments

Hey Westcoa,
Global warming is very real. One of the biggest problems people have is viewing the big picture. Most people can't imagine how 6 billion people all using hairspray every day for 50,000 years can affect anything. But it does. Now I have used maximum values here, but not all 6 billion people use hairspray but the number is still very large and we haven't been doing it for 50,000 years but we have been doing it for several hundred, every day, spray spray, spray placing millions upon millions of particulates into the air for which rain to condense around causing clouds covering up the earth keeping the heat in. And I just used hairspray as one example. Lets think about all the things we dump into the air, car exhaust, spray paint, spray chemicals, factories spewing out fumes daily, 24/7/365 for years and years. And it has no place to go. It can't go into outer space because the atmosphere keeps it in. The Earth is like inside a big bubble. All these particulats do not have a place to just escape. so they build up in our atmosphere. And the more we pour into it the more we poison it and oursleves.
I've never understood why we as people need to make 5000 new plastic cups every year or why we need to make thousands of new cars every year. They don't sell that fast and where do all these cars end up when no one buys them. In the recycling bin if you will. Sitting in lots rusting away. What a waste. No wonder we are in a economic crunch.
So keep using those hairsprays and spray deodrants and spray cleaners etc etc and fill up our air and warm up the Earth.
It is up to the people to say enough is enough. There are many ways to clean without spraying all this stuff in the air, start using stick deodarants, don't worry about your hair so much. If people can't take you as you are then they don't need to be here.
Let's get smart folks, time to change the world for the better and most importantly - FOR YOU and YOUR KIDS!!!!!!!!!!
weeeeeeeeeeeee!!! I hope I stirred the pot vigoursly because someone has to.