Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Global Warming: Humankind’s Unwillingness to Save Itself Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On significant issues politicians tend to have informed opinions. Also politicians often have their own feelings in mind and act against public feeling, tuition fees as an example.

    When several sources quote the same statistics it's likely their reliable, just because I personally cannot find the source of the statistics does not mean they're wrong.

    If you're going to read scientific journals that state climate change is due to humans then you should at least read the contrary journals before formulating an opinion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Enjoy getting duped into lining Al Gore's fat ass while he flies on his private jet.

    The Earth isn't going to melt. We're not all going to die. It is scaremongering.

    Green energy is a joke in itself, especially when government tries its hand at it. Ever heard of Solyndra? If you are that concerned about emissions, look no further than nuclear energy. But no, the left hate that as well.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Enjoy getting duped into lining Al Gore's fat ass while he flies on his private jet.

    The Earth isn't going to melt. We're not all going to die. It is scaremongering.

    Green energy is a joke in itself, especially when government tries its hand at it. Ever heard of Solyndra? If you are that concerned about emissions, look no further than nuclear energy. But no, the left hate that as well.
    No one said the earth is going to melt they said the icecaps are melting which is true. No one said we're all going to die.

    Nuclear energy, You mean that power source that:

    Risks exposing people to dangerous radiation leaks?

    Creates significant quantities of highly dangerous radioactive waste that costs a great deal to safely dispose of?

    Heats up the water in the oceans used to keep the inner workings cool?

    Can't imagine why someone would oppose them.

    Yes some environmentalists are scare mongerers in the same way the some religious people are creationists. They're not the majority nor are they indicative of the rest of them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/
    I think this guy would disagree


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...nother-record/
    I think this guy would disagree
    I don't think you can directly link to forbes, it doesn't work for me. Sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic, land ice is rapidly decreasing (real source). Also, western antarctic sea ice decreasing, and has warmed 2.5 degrees since 1950 (source). Overall though, the Antarctic is not losing ice as quickly as the Greenland ice sheet.

    I'll leave this here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...termediate.htm

    If you've got arguments against AGW, have a look at this site. If your arguments aren't answered there I'd be interested to hear them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    1. Ice is less dense than water. Therefore ice takes more volume than water with same mass.
    2. Most of the icebergs etc is under water
    3. Therefore if all of this melt the sea levels will actually decrease or increase only slightly. (Archimedes principle shows us that the mass of the icebergs is equal to the mass of the water displaced)

    Fill a glass with water and then add enough ice cubes to make the water overflow a bit. Leave it in the sun or just allow it to melt. Water does NOT overflow.

    Therefore don't worry about the sea levels. It'll just increase a bit (due to ice above water melting first and thermal expansion ) and then it'll stabilised.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Problem is we don't care as long as we can die
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that there is nothing more can be done, its just a waiting game now
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    We haven't had any 'catastrophic proportions'. It is hyped up so government can further expand into our lives. It is climate change; something which is actually natural. How do you think the planet came out of the ice age...
    Through natural variations in the Earth's orbit and axis which lead to greater total radiative forcing in the polar regions.

    The better question is: why do you think this is relevant to the current warming?

    The answer is: you don't know better.
    • Study Helper
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hayley Smiths)
    I agree that there is nothing more can be done, its just a waiting game now
    Crikey, have you guy's got no backbone? Will you simply roll over without fighting for that which you will inherit long after the current crop of boso's are dead and gone?

    Look up 'counterculture' it's what gave you the freedoms and rights you enjoy today.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    If you're going to read scientific journals that state climate change is due to humans then you should at least read the contrary journals before formulating an opinion
    There are no such things as pro-AGW journals and skeptic journals. Reputable scientific journals are organised based upon their field of interest, not pre-formed opinions of the answer to a certain question.


    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    You can look on the Internet and easily find the arguments to suggest global warming is not manmade and not a problem
    Not one which hasn't been debunked time and time again and which is only continuing to be used because it is well-received within the echo chamber of denier opinion in the blogosphere and the press.

    Seriously, business magazines and internet webpages of dubious origin are not the places to go to get informed about science.

    This is where you should be going:

    http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/...mate/journals/

    I've found that article you mentioned, and have prepared a draft debunking of it so that you can see how unreliable the sources you've been using are. I will reply with it soon, once my uni timetable gives me time to.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    In years to come, we will look back on this time as one of the greatest scandals in the history of the world - how quasi-religious fanatics duped humanity into wasting untold trillions and changing lifestyles on the basis of nonsense. Our descendants will laugh at how these green freaks were allowed to peddle their bunco without prosecution.

    In hundreds of years people will say: "The world got hotter, then it got colder, then it got hotter, then it got colder. What arrogance possessed the humans of the the 20-21st centuries to believe that it was their doing?"
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    In hundreds of years people will say: "The world got hotter, then it got colder, then it got hotter, then it got colder. What arrogance possessed the humans of the the 20-21st centuries to believe that it was their doing?"
    The arrogance of evidence. Educate yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr A Smith)
    A global environmental shift of catastrophic proportions cannot be averted while humankind’s actions continue to be coerced by its present form of self-imposed economic and societal structure. Preventing the looming disastrous effects of global warming requires change of epic proportion in the way humankind governs itself. Among the implementation of other equally radical policies, total prohibition of burning fossil fuels is essential to avoiding climate change that will likely cause intense and widespread devastation.

    Humankind is aware of what is required of itself, but the implications of effectively rising to the challenge of global warming make implementing an effective strategy dangerous and unrealistic within the confines of the present global economic and political framework. Instead humankind buries its head in the sand in the form of simpler and ineffective measures such as the Kyoto Protocol.

    Momentous global change is now inevitable. The question is: Do we orchestrate the transition to the best of our ability, or do we submit to the mercy of our environment’s revolution?
    Is it? I'm still unconvinced by both sides of the argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiser MacCleg)
    The arrogance of evidence. Educate yourself.
    I think you're the one that needs a bit of education.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I think you're the one that needs a bit of education.
    Then please, educate me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    In years to come, we will look back on this time as one of the greatest scandals in the history of the world - how quasi-religious fanatics duped humanity into wasting untold trillions and changing lifestyles on the basis of nonsense. Our descendants will laugh at how these green freaks were allowed to peddle their bunco without prosecution.

    In hundreds of years people will say: "The world got hotter, then it got colder, then it got hotter, then it got colder. What arrogance possessed the humans of the the 20-21st centuries to believe that it was their doing?"
    No they won't because cycles of heating and cooling take thousands and millions of years. They are so slow we can account for changes due to them easily. The global average temperature has risen far to rapidly for any of the climate change cycles, it has done this at the same time that human population exploded and increased the levels of greenhouse gases beyond their normal levels. These act to prevent heat that should escape the atmosphere from doing so, thus the temperature rises.

    Provide actual evidence that global warming or climate change is not occuring then you can debate. Until then, I put you in the same pit as creationists and homeopaths, people peddling whatever rubbish they want because it either benefits them or they don't want to face facts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    I don't think you can directly link to forbes, it doesn't work for me. Sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic, land ice is rapidly decreasing (real source). Also, western antarctic sea ice decreasing, and has warmed 2.5 degrees since 1950 (source). Overall though, the Antarctic is not losing ice as quickly as the Greenland ice sheet.

    I'll leave this here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...termediate.htm

    If you've got arguments against AGW, have a look at this site. If your arguments aren't answered there I'd be interested to hear them.
    I think if you look on that same website it tells you that co2 rises after temperature does, the co2 effect is the core argument on global warming?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisIsAmazen)
    I think if you look on that same website it tells you that co2 rises after temperature does, the co2 effect is the core argument on global warming?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Large quantities of CO2 are frozen in polar ice. As they melt, it increases the atmospheric CO2 so we have a positive feedback loop, of a slight increase triggers large increases.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Large quantities of CO2 are frozen in polar ice. As they melt, it increases the atmospheric CO2 so we have a positive feedback loop, of a slight increase triggers large increases.
    The other planets are however seeing warming. In fact the polar caps on mars are also melting.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-cc5c23c24651

    the simple fact is that climate continually changes. We have difficulty predicting even farther out accurately and there's so many variables.

    the actual degree of warming is a lot lower than has been predicted.
    the degree of impact from the activity of the sun isn't fully understood.
    the earths magnetic poles are moving.
    we don't fully understand the impact of deep sea currents.
    people are making a lot of money out of carbon trading and renewable energy

    I believe in sustainability and reduction in waste. I don't however believe however in holding back developing and under developing countries.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.