Global Warming: Humankind’s Unwillingness to Save Itself
Scroll to see replies
www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-lcentury/
Here's a start you can simply google something like global warning not manmade and I'm sure lots more websites will come up, I thought I'd just start you off with a highly credible site.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Here's a start you can simply google something like global warning not manmade and I'm sure lots more websites will come up, I thought I'd just start you off with a highly credible site.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
It still seems most people posting here haven't actually considered the opposing side to this argument, there is evidence to suggest global warming isn't a problem nor is it manmade
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Global warming “isn’t a problem” as far as the planet’s consciousness of it is concerned, but its effects are a big problem for those humans who are morally inclined to preserve a biologically diverse, sustainable and prosperous environment for future generations.
There is evidence to suggest aliens have landed on Earth, the Lochness Monster exists, and that all of one’s experience could be a great misrepresentation. In the broadest sense, evidence can be a compelling guideline within a particular context, but that is all. Every belief is ultimately an intuitive rationalisation. Everyone is a believer, no one is a knower.
Original post by Gwilym101
Your source of this evidence?
The global climate changes periodically in million year and thousand year cycles, regional changes can happen in hundreds and tens of year cycles. We know this and can accout for it, what has happened in the last hundred years is we have seen an exponential rise in average global temperature, as well as massive declines in the levels of polar ice. That is not meant to happen at the rate it currently is.
This coupled with the fact that our population has exploded in the last century and we have increased use of fossil fuels that release gas such as Carbon Dioxide and other gases that act as insulators in the atmosphere it is fairly clear that we are in part responsible.
True an average increase in temperature can happen naturally, but not in such a short period of time.
The global climate changes periodically in million year and thousand year cycles, regional changes can happen in hundreds and tens of year cycles. We know this and can accout for it, what has happened in the last hundred years is we have seen an exponential rise in average global temperature, as well as massive declines in the levels of polar ice. That is not meant to happen at the rate it currently is.
This coupled with the fact that our population has exploded in the last century and we have increased use of fossil fuels that release gas such as Carbon Dioxide and other gases that act as insulators in the atmosphere it is fairly clear that we are in part responsible.
True an average increase in temperature can happen naturally, but not in such a short period of time.
By saying these things "can't" happen you are falling into the trap of human arrogance and ignorance. You cannot possibly hope to know everything and humans find it comforting to believe we can explain why these things happen and shun the possibility that it's something we simply can't explain
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mr A Smith
What you say is fair, to an extent. Ideally, the top 10 challenges that humankind faces today should be addressed simultaneously due to the highly associative nature of all of humankind’s behavioural characteristics – the present global societal and economic framework just doesn’t allow for self-inflicted change at the level required:
Humankind can’t do X because Y won’t allow it.
Humankind can’t do Y because it will effect Z and X won’t allow Z to change in that way.
Desperate times require desperate measures: A carefully planned, democratic redesigning of the global framework. Extreme change is inevitable and scares everyone– but the sensible thing to do is to implement that change, not to be at the mercy of it.
Humankind can’t do X because Y won’t allow it.
Humankind can’t do Y because it will effect Z and X won’t allow Z to change in that way.
Desperate times require desperate measures: A carefully planned, democratic redesigning of the global framework. Extreme change is inevitable and scares everyone– but the sensible thing to do is to implement that change, not to be at the mercy of it.
But we aren't living in desperate times; look at the last century if you think we are. Our largest problem is poverty and a "carefully planned, democratic redesigning of the global framework" is unlikely to help; if it could then India wouldn't be so poor. Central planning doesn't work, and there are a hell of a lot of nations which are held back by their own governments - and that's a far bigger problem than global warming.
If we want to improve the life of the average human then the nations of the world need to be more free, and the world economy needs to be able to grow consistently. There will be environmental damage, but that's a tradeoff that must be made if we want to lift the world out of poverty in one human lifetime.
I use to be ignorant about the state of our planet is in but I watched a nature documentary on youtube and I saw how we were upsetting the natural balance of the earth and destroying natural habitats. There are so many beautiful animals that are under threat and nobody cares. We need to preserve our nature
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-lcentury/
Here's a start you can simply google something like global warning not manmade and I'm sure lots more websites will come up, I thought I'd just start you off with a highly credible site.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Here's a start you can simply google something like global warning not manmade and I'm sure lots more websites will come up, I thought I'd just start you off with a highly credible site.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Your link does not work.
Original post by sevchenko
I use to be ignorant about the state of our planet is in but I watched a nature documentary on youtube and I saw how we were upsetting the natural balance of the earth and destroying natural habitats. There are so many beautiful animals that are under threat and nobody cares. We need to preserve our nature
Animals become extinct, 90% of all animals that have exists don't anymore. It's simply a course of nature, us destroying there habitats for whatever reasons is simply just another force of nature causing that to happen. It's also natural for animals to expand their territory.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by pjm600
Your link does not work.
Google global warming hoax and it should be the second result, if not look for one on Forbes website
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
Google global warming hoax and it should be the second result, if not look for one on Forbes website
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Since the climate is a hugely complicated issue that very few people here are going to be able to understand, can you provide links to any scientific institutions which don't accept climate change?
Original post by A_Howells
We need to think long term with projects like this. Problem is that the government won't be around to see the consequences of their and our actions.
They bang in about "our children's, children" yet they don't make the essential steps needed. It's more than a government problem though, it's a global problem. We need countires like China to come on board, and developing countires like India, middle-easten countries and places in South Africa to come on board.
They refuse too because it's cheaper and they make the case of, you richer countires have been doing it, destroying the atmosphere, why can't we do when you lot have done for many decades. They used fancier words but the same point is made.
America, Britian or Europe can't solve this problem. EVERYONE has got to be involved and it just isn't happening for now.
They bang in about "our children's, children" yet they don't make the essential steps needed. It's more than a government problem though, it's a global problem. We need countires like China to come on board, and developing countires like India, middle-easten countries and places in South Africa to come on board.
They refuse too because it's cheaper and they make the case of, you richer countires have been doing it, destroying the atmosphere, why can't we do when you lot have done for many decades. They used fancier words but the same point is made.
America, Britian or Europe can't solve this problem. EVERYONE has got to be involved and it just isn't happening for now.
Exactly. I know it's difficult but surely the developing countries need to be encouraged to not make our mistakes.
Alright, found it, I'll give my rebuttal.
Little ice age point: Not sure what point he's trying to make, he's basically said is was cold and now it is warm, therefore it's natural.
Humans thrive more: Again, not sure of the relevance I'll link to an image showing the effects of rising temps, though. link.
Temp record inaccurate: Various independent studies have shown the records and models to be accurate.
No warming since 1970s:
Water vapor: An increase in CO2 drives an increase in water vapor, creating a positive feedback.
CO2 doesn't cause warming in past: In past warming periods, other factors influenced the warming (such as changes in the earth's orbit) which caused the oceans to release CO2, causing further warming.
Little ice age point: Not sure what point he's trying to make, he's basically said is was cold and now it is warm, therefore it's natural.
Humans thrive more: Again, not sure of the relevance I'll link to an image showing the effects of rising temps, though. link.
Temp record inaccurate: Various independent studies have shown the records and models to be accurate.
No warming since 1970s:
Water vapor: An increase in CO2 drives an increase in water vapor, creating a positive feedback.
CO2 doesn't cause warming in past: In past warming periods, other factors influenced the warming (such as changes in the earth's orbit) which caused the oceans to release CO2, causing further warming.
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
Animals become extinct, 90% of all animals that have exists don't anymore. It's simply a course of nature, us destroying there habitats for whatever reasons is simply just another force of nature causing that to happen. It's also natural for animals to expand their territory.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
No species before us has ever caused so much damage to other species. Expanding territory usually doesn't go beyond a couple of miles, not the whole world.
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
By saying these things "can't" happen you are falling into the trap of human arrogance and ignorance. You cannot possibly hope to know everything and humans find it comforting to believe we can explain why these things happen and shun the possibility that it's something we simply can't explain
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
a) Your link didn't work.
b) You still haven't provided scientific evidence for your claim.
Forbes is not an authority on climate change, it is a business magazine. Provide evidence from an unbiased scientific journal such as Science or Nature. Until then you are making baseless assertion.
Also we can 'shun the possibility' if the evidence is telling us something else, which it is.
See this article published by Science: yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/ReprintsYLY/N014Wang1976.pdf
Well nothing is unbiased, everybody wants you to believe what they do. Although Forbes is a business magazine they wouldn't print stories which are just complete rubbish. You can look on the Internet and easily find the arguments to suggest global warming is not manmade and not a problem
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
Well nothing is unbiased, everybody wants you to believe what they do. Although Forbes is a business magazine they wouldn't print stories which are just complete rubbish. You can look on the Internet and easily find the arguments to suggest global warming is not manmade and not a problem
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Basis of scientific evidence has to repeatable, verfiable and falsifiable. All this is to remove as much potential bias as possible. Even if Forbes was attempting to be unbiased, which I highly doubt considering the some of the businessmen it talks about own companies contributing to global warming, the journalist will not understand the science to the same degree as an expert who studies the field.
Saying 'you can find evidence on the internet' is not evidence. You can find "evidence" that the earth is flat and the moon landings were hoax that does not make it so.
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
Well nothing is unbiased, everybody wants you to believe what they do. Although Forbes is a business magazine they wouldn't print stories which are just complete rubbish. You can look on the Internet and easily find the arguments to suggest global warming is not manmade and not a problem
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Please link to scientific papers.
I don't have access to specific scientific papers nor can I really be bothered to search around for them. However something doesn't have to be written down in science papers for if to be valid, US senators have doubted that climate change is man made, books have been written, statistics are on the Internet
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
I don't have access to specific scientific papers nor can I really be bothered to search around for them. However something doesn't have to be written down in science papers for if to be valid, US senators have doubted that climate change is man made, books have been written, statistics are on the Internet
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Actually on scientific field of research it does have to be written in journals to be valid. Books can be written about anything and unless submitted to the scientific communities are not subject to the same level of critisism as a scientific article. Politicians follows the believes of those who voted for them and will not have as valid opinion as an expert in the field. Finally like I said anything can be found on the internet.
Google scholar allows access to alot of scientific papers, I even posted one I knew you would be able to access as it doesn't require subscription to an journal to get.
If you don't evidence and are not willing to find some, don't debate.
Well I'm quite sure a publishing company wouldn't print a book if they knew that everything in it was stupidly unsubstantiated and wrong. Politicians are human beings, they have their own opinions which are often far more informed than the public, if you believe politicians always act on what the people who elected them want then you're deluded.
As I'm not a scientist or science student I don't really know much about what key terms to search to find these journals but Co2 emissions continue to rise yet since 2002 the earth has cooled. Temperature rises have preceded rises in Co2 emissions. These two facts alone make manmade climate change hard to support
Posted from TSR Mobile
As I'm not a scientist or science student I don't really know much about what key terms to search to find these journals but Co2 emissions continue to rise yet since 2002 the earth has cooled. Temperature rises have preceded rises in Co2 emissions. These two facts alone make manmade climate change hard to support
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-lcentury/
Here's a start you can simply google something like global warning not manmade and I'm sure lots more websites will come up, I thought I'd just start you off with a highly credible site.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Here's a start you can simply google something like global warning not manmade and I'm sure lots more websites will come up, I thought I'd just start you off with a highly credible site.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
Well nothing is unbiased, everybody wants you to believe what they do. Although Forbes is a business magazine they wouldn't print stories which are just complete rubbish. You can look on the Internet and easily find the arguments to suggest global warming is not manmade and not a problem
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
You do realise that on part of the Forbes online blogging section, anyone can post stories, not necessarily endorsed by the paper?
Also, scientific journals are as unbiased as you can get. Look up the system which determines if papers get in if you want. And the internet without a reliable source is pointless to state. You can equally find "evidence" for all kinds of conspiracies like the people in power all being lizards, cults, pro-anorexia, pro-segregation, etc. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Far from it.
Original post by LewisIsAmazen
Well I'm quite sure a publishing company wouldn't print a book if they knew that everything in it was stupidly unsubstantiated and wrong. Politicians are human beings, they have their own opinions which are often far more informed than the public, if you believe politicians always act on what the people who elected them want then you're deluded.
As I'm not a scientist or science student I don't really know much about what key terms to search to find these journals but Co2 emissions continue to rise yet since 2002 the earth has cooled. Temperature rises have preceded rises in Co2 emissions. These two facts alone make manmade climate change hard to support
Posted from TSR Mobile
As I'm not a scientist or science student I don't really know much about what key terms to search to find these journals but Co2 emissions continue to rise yet since 2002 the earth has cooled. Temperature rises have preceded rises in Co2 emissions. These two facts alone make manmade climate change hard to support
Posted from TSR Mobile
Some main points:
1.Of course politicians follow the views of the people that vote for them, power is often their main concern. Look at Lloyd George at the Treaty of Versailles for an extreme example which had significant consequences. Another point is that politicians are not immune from having uninformed opinions. See several republicans for an example.
2. When debating something like this, in order to consider the other side people need reliable sources. How can you base your opinion on something unfounded and without evidence?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- live concerts / festivals
- weather
- Brunel or reading uni: computer science
- dt, this is urgent my assignments due in literally 4 hours.
- English speaking GCSE part of language exam - help
- Leeds vs Sheffield Vs QMuL
- English paper 2 q5
- Should I make a Stocks and Shares ISA now?
- why is noone reading my wattpad storyyyy :(
- Should I take the offer? UBS Global Markets (IB) Degree Apprenticeship
- Conducting research
- Looking to study business management or business marketing
- Public Policy (Master's) - UCL vs KCL?
- Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 | 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How do I stay warm in my uni house
- Cambridge with no scholarship Vs University of St Andrews with full scholarship
- Global warming solution
- Politics a level person edexcel
- Power point presentation
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
