Planetary Demise

[Tiberius]

"I don't think there is conclusive evidence that it's caused by humans"

You have stated that there is not conclusive evidence that it is caused by humans, yet now you deny that you made that statement? I don't think it could be any clearer.

Are we really doing this again?

I said there was no conclusive evidence that it is caused by humans. The keyword there is "conclusive".

You asked: "No evidence it is caused by humans??"

The question marks (two of them) suggest a state of incredulity; that you are astounded I would make such a statement. Only problem is, I never made such a statement. I did not say there was no evidence global warming is caused by humans; I said there was no conclusive evidence. Two very different things my friend.

If I say "there are no red cars", does it mean I also hold the belief that "there are no cars"? No, not necessarily.

You have also stated that there is no evidence it will be of any danger to us in the future, yet you've admitted that if the ice caps melt rising sea levels will be a problem, is this not contradictory? Do the people living on the coasts not matter?

Again, I did not state there was "no evidence". I stated there was no conclusive evidence. It is not contradictory for the reasons I stated; even if the ice caps melt, it will not be enough water to flood the Earth completely. Additionally, it will happen slowly, not sudden like some kind of flash flood. People near the coasts will have plenty of time to relocate. An actual danger that might come from global warming is if the temperature of the planet gets too hot to sustain life (both us, and what we eat). However, I have seen no evidence that such drastic temperature rises are predicted.

You seem to have the attitude that it doesn't matter if a few animals or humans are effected by global warming, so long as it is only a miminal amount of people that are effected. Also you seem to use the fact that we've been effected by it in the past as an excuse to continue the process, the problem is not that climate change is occuring, the problem is that we're speeding up the process when we do not need to.

No, my attitude is that nature is a bitch, and often it is pointless to fight against it. We can't stop storms, but we can build defenses against them. The same goes for global warming. Whilst it would be great if we could slow down the process, it is also good if we can plan for a future that is warmer.

Oh, and my point about it happening in the past wasn't that we should use it as an excuse; I was just pointing out facts.

[ManMachine]

The fundamental problem with this sort of debate is it inevitably fails to get to the heart of the matter.

Humans have an impact on the environment, this is a fact. We use up resources, we produce waste, we change landscapes, we foul water, we burn fossil fuels, we chop down forests, we introduce alien species of flora and fauna... everything we do changes our environment in some way.

This behaviour is not new and is not limited to just humans, every species of animals does it, some species extinct themselves through doing it. If we carry on reproducing in large numbers and behaving the way we do then we will extinct ourselves, or at best seriously reduce our numbers because the environment will not sustain us.

This has been going on for millions of years, what makes us think we can change it. We might be able to hold it off for a while but to what ends? We are not the guardians of the planet; we are not and never will be friends of the Earth.

Environmentalism is predicated on the perpetuation of conditions optimal for human survival. A battle we are never going to win.

But, environmentalism offers us the same basic comforts as religion, it provides hope and censorship. Censorship in the form of a set of rules we need to follow in order to realise our hope for a better future.

It's a crusade, and if it were not environmentalism it would be something else we invented to fulfil the need. If we are to evolve (Humans 2) then we must accept extinction of what we are now because that's how it works and deep down we all know it.


MM

[KichigaiNeko]

+1 kudos MM

---

+1 kudos Tiberius

---

The overwhelming consensus of scientist dedicated to studying climate change agree that it is real and man made. I was trained and worked as a scientist for ten years. So when someone suggested it wasn't true, I went to the journals, read a couple reputable books, and feel comfortable saying with 100 % confidence that it is true and man made. If you are not a scientist how would you judge? You might read this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy...apers.html

Like high level philosophical arguments, consensus of experts can be a sign. JD

Yep read that and a plethora of other "blogs" on the topic including science sites and even some papers on the topic. So has many other people over the past 70 years and STILL we are no closer to conclusive evidence. Funny that a recent team from Greenland found that the climate of 130,000 years ago was 8-10 degrees C hotter?

[Angrboda]

Global warming is happening. I don't think there is conclusive evidence that it's caused by humans, or that it will be of any danger to us in the long run.

I haven't studied the issue in any great amount, but from the one presentation I did attend, I was told that approximately half of the forces which might contribute to global warming are the result of human activity. This is probably why the term currently in vogue is anthropogenic global warming or AGW, which is basically Latin for "human caused warming." My minimal impression is that AGW is indeed a serious issue, the main contention being the great variability in the results of various prediction scenarios. However, even the most conservative of them seem to imply serious consequences for our planet and its inhabitants.

And what about the animals who live in the wild whose habitats are being destroyed by this? I feel sorry for the people who have to live in this world in the future if we are just going to pass this problem off as not our fault.

Climate change isn't something new. Go back several thousand years and the climate was very different to what it is today. Countless species have become extinct due to the perfectly normal climate change the Earth experiences. The beauty of evolution and nature is that when one species dies out, another almost always takes its place.

This is true to an extent, but only to an extent. Ecosystems tend to be stabilized by vast chains of inter-species and inter-environment dependencies. Changing the environment too quickly can lead to major links in those chains disappearing which can very easily lead to the entire ecosystem crashing. And then there are specific species which may warrant greater concern. I think most of us would be unhappy with any public policy which led to the extinction of the human race. Bee colony collapse disorder is of major concern because of the bee's role in pollinating, and thus perpetuating, many major food crops. And I'd have to look up the figures, but if memory serves, the majority of our atmosphere's oxygen is generated by phytoplankton of various kinds in the phototropic zone of our oceans (the top 200 feet); the bulk of these phytoplankton are sensitive to variations in temperature such that a significant change in the temperature in the phototropic zone could lead to that system's collapse, with the resultant end of production of oxygen critically impacting forms of life planet wide.

There's a big differences between casually sipping a beer and shot-gunning a six-pack. Deltas matter, as well as whom those deltas hit.

[Cinjin]

So from what I can tell, no one on this site has stated that global warming is NOT happening.
This is not a huge surprise but I thought at least one of our trolls our maybe one of our theists would make this claim.

I was actually looking to hear from someone who does not believe in the global planetary warm. If I can listen to the absurdity of zombie jews I can certainly handle questionable science.