What do YOU think about CO2 & Global Warming

Scroll to see replies

I do believe that we are partly to blame but then again not.

You see... If you look at the natural fall and rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the last millennia... there is a pattern. CO2 levels peak before an ice-age or the like. CO2 levels at the moment have been rising for some time, this does not mean that we are about to witness an ice-age, what I mean to say is... global warming - because of increased carbon emissions from human activity is a theory, and one that could be quarrelled with the solid facts found about the change in atmospheric CO2 levels over time.

I am a 16 year old high school student. This is my opinion.

Reply 41

lilnikkita

Why do I get the sense that people on this website like to bash Americans? Of course it's not only an American thing to find global climate change a fallacy. There are many people all over the world who are ignorant and uneducated to the point that they don't know enough to formulate an opinion and are easily persuaded and manipulated on top of that. Using a slightly different example to make my point, take Uganda. Men are killed for being gay. Why? Because horrible fundamentalist Christian groups go over to Africa and preach to them that being gay is wrong and goes against god and the bible. Yes, I recognize the fact that these Christians hail from the US, but my point is that the masses (in my opinion) can be easily swayed, especially growing up in an environment where they're unable to learn to think for themselves. It's easier to be ignorant for some instead of accepting that we are slowly destroying the earth. Given this set of circumstances, I don't think it's a question whether or not there are people all over the world who don't believe in global warming. It's a sad truth.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 42

EsStupido

Original post by 01010000 01001010

Very provocative, I must say.

Using terms like "brainwashed" is rather redundant for such discussions, do you not agree?

Anyway, sceptic, I suggest you read THIS (if you can manage it) and then, perhaps, you may realise that there's a very very good reason as to why that particular "article" has "not undergone any scientific peer review". Hehe.

But still you refuse to respond to MrCynical.

Why?

Reply 43

01010000 01001010

Original post by EsStupido

But still you refuse to respond to MrCynical.

Why?

His opinion is firmly set, I am not going to waste time trying to change that. I agree with A LOT of what he said, but he seriously needs to realise that CRU at UEA =/= climate research.

Reply 44

EsStupido

Original post by 01010000 01001010

His opinion is firmly set, I am not going to waste time trying to change that. I agree with A LOT of what he said, but he seriously needs to realise that CRU at UEA =/= climate research.

Ah, so what you actually mean is you're incapable of arguing his points.

Cheers, that's all I wanted to know.

Reply 45

lilnikkita

Original post by Aj12

I don't know tbh. All I can say is that the planet's climate is changing that the only way to stop it is going to be geoengineering

Original post by Aj12

I don't know tbh. All I can say is that the planet's climate is changing that the only way to stop it is going to be geoengineering

Geoengineering is most certainly not the only solution! I hope that we will work harder, globally, towards sustainable methods before having no other choice than to turn to it. Currently, I think that our situation is not dire enough that this would be a solution. Granted the steps we have to take for countries to all work together around the world is quite a challenge and might never happen, still it would be better to try and work together to reduce CO2 emissions rather than turning to methods with questionable results. For example, if we started to dump iron deposits into the ocean (which would increase primary productivity), what would happen to the marine ecosystems overtime? The problem is that we don't know! We can't operate on such a large scale with huge uncertainty. If the results are catastrophic, then we will have effectively damaged large ecosystems and how would go about repairing them? There are many ways to target climate change now. The solutions are here, the problem is working together on an international level, getting more people to care and understand the issues, and finding ways to improve sustainable energy such as wind turbines and solar panels to make them more efficient.

Reply 46

lilnikkita

I see your point. The Americans that would defend Bush on this are probably Republican, conservative, and uneducated. I can't speak for everyone and yes, I recognize that I'm making assumptions, but it's hard for me to believe that liberals or democrats would defend Bush and deny something that isn't supposed to be an argument in the first place, but fact. In other words, those Youtube videos represent some Americans, but not all.

Reply 47

Aj12

Original post by lilnikkita

The problem is that even if we reduce co2 we then have to keep it there. On top of that this will most likly require that we stifle development in the Third world as well as countries like India China ect.

Reply 48

User570431

Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

Reply 49

01010000 01001010

Original post by EsStupido

Ah, so what you actually mean is you're incapable of arguing his points.

Cheers, that's all I wanted to know.

I lol'd, I guess your name is justified. I don't care about people's OPINIONS on GW unless they are a scientist working within the field of atmospheric sciences/climate physics/we, his points are his opinions, which he has gathered from listening to media corporations who use such tricks to sell things.

If you want an argument about the SCIENCE behind GW (no doubt CRU will come up though, eh?) then feel free to propose some ideas about the mathematical climate models or how the data collected is being analysed. I will even point you to a PDF that dumbs down all the maths involved so the layman can understand it. < And hey! Look! They didn't even use any of the data 'collected or stored' by CRU! Must be more lies though, right!?

I'm surprised to see people utter such views on a primarily-British forum; the debate in Europe is generally about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening

Reply 50

EsStupido

Again you avoid the question.

You're stumped by his arguments, I get it.

Stop getting so worked up over it.

Reply 51

User570431

Original post by llamalad200

so how exactly did global warming cause this? melting the ice?

Take a few geography lessons and you will find out :wink:

Reply 52

lilnikkita

Original post by Aj12

hmmmm...That is a very good point. I don't think we would have a problem sticking with lowered emissions if people would actively change their lifestyles by depending less on their own vehicles (i.e. public transport, carpooling, and riding a bike, ect... ). If everyone in the entire world remember to turn their lights off and the tv when they left a room on top of unplugging electrical appliances with they're not in use, I do believe that would make a change. Of course that won't happen, but that is where a push towards public awareness comes into play. I think the overall driver of maintaining lowered emissions is with a growing dependence on sustainable energy, where we're less dependent on oil and coal mining. As for stifled development in third world countries, I'm not sure what to say about that. I think that development will always be an issue regardless, but what about spreading sustainable agriculture onto these lands? I can't say I've studied it enough to understand the cost/benefit analysis, but it seems like a possible solution if the funding is there. China is a growing superpower, so I don't see the issue applying to that country.

Reply 53

EsStupido

Who are you? What was the point of that post?

Reply 54

dreiviergrenadier

Original post by Aj12

Development in the third world will be even more stifled if they face the predicted disproportionate effect of global warming, especially considering they don't have the resources to protect against the threat. It's not a case of preventing GW v development: development is only possible if we keep GW in check.

Reply 55

Walter Ego

There have been 15 ice ages in the last 2 million years, all caused by a combination of factors from orbital eccentricity (100,000 year cycle), axial precession (22,000 year cycle), orbital plane tilt (41,000 cycle) and solar activity. They have happened many times before, they will happen again, and we even know roughly when, and that man is sod all to do with them. There is no denying that the Earths resources are becoming stretched, but this is due to our excessive population outstripping natures balance. I know that any suggestion to try and control that would see the bleeding heart human rights activists going to war against the eco-mentallists. Every politician knows that in their life-time there will be no difference, except to their retirement plan and bank balance. Life goes on, maybe not human life, and we are right to try and preserve what we cherish, but our efforts are both futile and hopelessly misguided whilst being driven by the wrong people.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 56

User570431

Some of you selfish people don't care here because you think it wont happen to you :frown:

Its actually down to the big factories but small measures from us can help :biggrin:

Reply 57

freedomfries

I actually think too many people make too big a deal about whether or not climate change is real, or if humans caused it. The Earth has been hotter than it is now, and it's been colder than it is now. So in its essence, "climate change" is perfectly natural. I really believe that people should stop arguing about the extent to which CO2 emissions are affecting climate change and put more emphasis on the extent to which CO2 emissions are affecting us, our health, and the environment around us. I don't think anyone can realistically argue that continuing to pollute the environment isn't a bad thing, so why can't we focus on renewable energy sources and cleaning up the damage we're doing? Not for the sake of stopping climate change, but for the sake of keeping our world a decent place in which to live.

Reply 58

lilnikkita

Original post by portugueseninja

I agree with you for the most part. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things whether or not climate change is happening or if it's a threat. Climate change has always occurred and will continue. Efforts to keep our surrounding environment clean and thus enjoyable to be in is an overall good thing regardless. I think people should still understand what the real problem behind climate change is though. If we all had a better understanding of how nature works (for example: the carbon cycle), then perhaps more effort would be put into respecting the earth and being conscious of our actions and lifestyle. It's not the fact the earth is warming that's a problem, it's the rate at which it is happening. Species all over the world, including plants, are not able to adapt quickly enough to these changes.

Reply 59

No Man

I believe overpopulation is the reason for the increased CO2, etc, however I don't believe it is the sole reason for climate change, because the Earth's climate has been changing since it was a fireball.

Either way, I see melting ice caps etc as a solution rather then an issue.
As cynical as it sounds, the issue is overpopulation, and the solution is decreasing the population, and melting ice caps, lack of food, etc will do just that. That is unless a nuclear war or another plague occurs first.

The Earth and the life on Earth won't be affected, it'll just adapt to it's environment like it has done since life began.
It would be a contest of 'survival of the fittest' for humans though because the population will be too high for everyone to survive.