Global warming: Why are we so slow to act?

I for one, am a passionate supporter of actions to decrease global carbon/unnecessary green house gas emissions, and support actions against global warming.

Over here in Australia, some people still feel unsure whether to act - whether they are misinformed, lazy, or skeptical.

I was wondering what the views are here, as people from all over the world have different views...

Why are we still not doing enough, despite significant evidence? Do you believe it is a hoax?

In short, why are we, as a whole, not acting when there is a clear possibility of global disaster?

Cheers,
Adrian

I dont care eitherway, and to be honest, this whole "go green" trend is annoying as hell and in most cases, just a way to add a couple bucks to a price by using a new fad. I mean do you think your local convienence store wants you to start buying fabric bags because its better for the environment, or because that helps them with less cost for disposable plastic bags and gives them another thing for most customers to buy.

The reason I dont care is because to be honest I could care less what happens to anyone or anything after I die.

@lostclimate: This is the typical american view ^^

That's way most of the people in america are overweight, that's way the car industry crashes that easy, that's way the rainforest get's destroyed, that's way a lot of animals die out, ... The list is endless! Ignorance is a typical american thing.



You are right, you won't live anymore when the results of global warning will be a real problem but your children, and their children.


I for myself am thinking that the real problem of global warning is in china and all those countries where a catalysator for example aren't officialy required and of course the way we make our current. I live in austria, so we don't have problems with producing clean current (because of the rivers) but caloric power plants are one of the biggest polluters.

The fossile deposits (gas,oil,coal) will be used up anyhow.
There will always be a country who treats them as valuable goods.

So their carbon deposits will be emitted into the athmosphere
either way. (no matter if in 50 or 200 years)

Using low energy car and such will simply delay that
emission over time. With the same end-result.

Not with the same end-result. If it goes slower, the nature has more time to react. And using low energy cars should be only a temporary solution until we find better drives than burning something. Additionally, using low energy cars produces less costs for fuel. I don't see any disadvantage for the end user.

Thats a good question:
is there a difference in the long run, if we emit
the same amount of carbon dioxyde over 50 or over 200 years.

Its the same additional amount in the sum. So does the
nature really "adapt" to that?

Even if Europe really tries hard to reduce the emissions,
there are many thirs world countries that will use up
the less costly fossile fuels then, as long as they are still
available.

Its also still not clear how much of the global warming
can be attributed to the emissions, and how much
is a normal climatical cycle.
Because that affects how much the reduction in emissions can really
change.

Another topic, which is overlooked:
Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas.
Cows and rice-fields emit huge amounts of that.
should they be also "forbidden"?

...or can see a way of making a profit out if it, either by acting on it now, OR delaying it.

I myself, as a fellow aussie, am dead set against the entire concept of "climate change".
I base my 'opinion' on what I have seen, heard, and read both in the public media "circus',
and in actual internet researching.
There is 'so-called' evidence pointing both ways, there are celebrities advocating both ways,
and there are scientists advocating both ways, so how to choose?
I decided to to look at how many scientists were advocating their chosen view FOR NO PROFIT.
Not for fame, not for money, not for their employers satisfaction.

The anti-"climate-change" scientists won hands down. There were even many that
have chosen to ostracise themselves from the scientific society BECAUSE they dont believe,
and dont want to be linked with supporters of climate-change.

So overall, I see no reason NOT to try make the planet a cleaner place,
just beware the smooth-talker who is trying to clean out your wallet using the same
arguments as Al Gore.


PS Sorry to any Al Gore supporters out there, but SHUT HIM UP PLEASE.
Anybody with even a high-school understanding of science can listen to just ONE
of his lectures and be converted to anti-climate-change, when he's tryin to support it!
The information he is using conflicts with itself. HE doesnt even understand it,
and so makes a fool of himself trying to explain it.
And that was my opinion of his "seminars" long before I had made up my mind.
I could be wrong in my opinion, and he may be right in his, so I dont have a problem
with him doing his pundit circuit, but PLEASE, get a script writer who knows his science.

So imagine right now, some major event affected you, and you know it was due to people (now passed away) who had the chance to stop it, for very little sacrifice. Personally, I would be angry. We need to think more holistic (?) and think about future generations. Just as you would happily invest in real estate, knowing in 20-30 years your children will benefit when it's value increases, why not invest in a clean, sustainable, and ultimately, fair chance of a life equal or better than we are experiencing.



Not necessarily. Lowering dependencies on fossil fuel sources (carbon emission sources) will hopefully give rise to alternate, sustainable technologies. These may supersede fossil fuel usage, and ultimately render them as a worse alternative of the two. It gives us more time to do what we do best: Solve problems.



Thats why we must work together for it to work successfully. Even so, countries who are highly developed IMO should be attempting to lead the world to do the correct thing - not push the problem onto developing nations. We should be searching for a solution...



I am no expert on this stuff, but there are many chemicals that act as greenhouse gasses (methane, CO2, HFCs). The aim is not to forbid them, but to make it knowledge that they are harming the environment, and that an alternative need to be found. In the sense of agriculture or animals, we cannot 'change' them from emitting it, but we can attempt to recycle or use it.

@EvilSOB:

Are any of the following false (paraphrasing 'Heat'):

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? ^^
2) We are releasing more CO2 (combustion of fossil fuels a major one)
3) More CO2 (Q2) means more heat retention (Q1), right?

How can that, albeit minimal and far too general, be incorrect?



So because you do not know how a computer works on a binary/electronic level you cannot educate people about how effective they are at number crunching? I'm sure even if he had a degree in a relevant field, he would still be questioned.

At least he is trying to persuade, driven by passion and a deep belief in what he speaks. Going by what you said, does that not mean one cannot argue against it if one didn't know the molecular chemistry of the gases, etc?

Cheers,
Adrian

Yeah, you're right. We should think about these things in a much more holistic way. It's crazy how a lot of people do not care.

It's stupid too, as many people already complain about smog in big cities and so on, but don't really do anything for it to change.

On a global scale, we can do without cars running on fossil fuel for sure, which would already have a great positive effect.



The third world countries don't even come close to our fossil fuel consumption though, so this is something of a non-argument. In fact, we pay third world countries so that we may use up their 'right' to pollute the earth.

There are of course industrialized parts in the world where the technological level isn't very high and because of that pollution is much worse than over here, but basically we're worse. After all, we do have the money and technology to change, which can't be said of many 3rd world countries.

1) In a (relativly) small, closed and controlled environment. YES....On a global scale - never PROVEN.
2) YES - CO2 "production" has risen to almost THREE times the amount it was in 1980.
3) WRONG - In my opinion. See my answer to two, BUT temperatures have not increased AT ALL since 1980.
For more info on 3), look-up our Aussie Pollie Senator Steve Fielding with a piece of paper he is trying
to show to Al Gore. I have seen this same (basic) information from several different sources,
for several years.

Not QUITE, but on the right track.
Im glad he is trying, no argument. He's making people sit up and think for a change.
But to use your analogy, if someone was trying to explain to me about a computers ability to number-crunch,
(and we will assume I dont even know how to turn one on, but I know of the existance of memory chips)
I then ask hime how it storess the numbers before the crunching.
If the "teacher" then waffles on about storing the data as X's and O's on a magnetic tape,
and I know thats not just wrong, but its seriously retarded, do you think I am going to
seriously consider anything else he says, like whether a computer really IS a good number cruncher?

Thats the impression I got from two different seminars of his. I went to the second
because I thought the first one may have been due to jet-lag or hang-over.

I credit the guy, he believes, and he's passionate about it. Any good cause needs that.
[EDIT] And it is a good cause. He is trying to explain things he "only-just" understands
to people who have been working in those science profession for decades.
He JUST needs more "script" or "Q & A" support from othr professionals in order to convince
professionals. Same in any other "sales" situation. He is selling an IDEA.

I just believe the idea he is selling is incorrect.

It's not about ignorance, it's about me using resources around me to make my life better. I will not be having kids and dont really care if anyone ever procreates again. Why does everyone have this obsession with thinking that the human race is important in some way?

I would think they are doing the bast for them in there life which is the logical thing to do.

The information he is using is incomplete (and perhaps outdated) at best, but it certainly does not conflict with itself at all. In fact, most of what he's been saying has been high school lesson material for Dutch students for decades already. He's only making a fool out of those who don't know this already by painfully showing how little the average American knows about this subject.

The fact that he made it a 'hot topic' is severely overrated in the whole debate anyway, let alone the fact that he did not do the research and he did not come to the conclusions he is propagating to as many people as possible. So.. I don't think he should be credited for any of that. In a way I agree he should just zip it, as he's making money off of this now.

It's almost plain stupid to attack him claiming he doesn't know what he's talking about. In fact, the irony in comments like those is that the basic idea when it comes to global warming is actually extremely easy to grasp, let alone that most naysayers do not know anything about the topic at all, but just feel threatened. :p



I could ask the very same thing about why people are obsessed with religion and Gods and all that. Trust me, there's no easy answer.

I think most people do have this idea that we can mean something by acting in a certain way. Basically changing the world to maximize what we can get out of it, is a great idea. Don't forget people are already dying because of over-pollution...

Personally, I think most of the people making the big noises on this subject,
are the sort of people who can make money JUST by making big noises...

Which is always a shame, because people on both sides of this topic have relevant things to say. If Al Gore really thought the topic was important, he shouldn't even have asked money for his 3rd grade power point presentations for sure. Making the global warming a very commercial thing already backfires like crazy.

It's stupid.

1) It is the chemical nature of the molecule to act as a greenhouse gas.
3) Sorry, from what I read, the sources I have seen look way more valid - they actually show the scientist's name who's presented the 'facts'. A politicians view is more biased for self gain than scientists who spend years researching the topics. I'm sure you will find 'proof' that the moon is actually purple somewhere out there ^^



I'm sure if you were stuck in a collapsed building, and someone has a chance to help you, but would rather go home and not miss the next episode of "House", you would not make that claim. Note the stupid alternative here - watching TV. As a whole, we need to do very little to attempt to prevent climate change.



I do not blame scientists for making noise about it? Them more than anyone would know how to interpret gathered data, and if they see a potential disaster to our environment, good on them for letting us know. It's just that it is inconvenient as we must make a compromise on our lives, which many sadly are unable to commit to.

yes, but if I was stuck in building 5,000 years later, and he could never drive his car again, or use a plastic bag, or use hairspray, or have an efficient power planet that he didnt have to pay a fortune to every month, to save someone that doesnt even exist yet. then no, I wouldnt care.

The simple fact that some people are making money off going green doesn't invalidate the issue. Sure, there are apt to be some snake oil salesmen, and some hype by those who want to make money but that has always been the case around every major issue or advance. In fact the possibility that industry will make some money is good - it offsets the argument from people complaining about the cost.

Even if you think this is 'fake' prudence suggests that if we err on the side of caution at worst we end up with a cleaner and less polluted planet. However if we are mistaken about the seriousness of the issue, and chose to ignore it, then we could destroy the planet.

It helps to remember we are basically floating on a rock with a thin skin of life. It is unlikely that a rescue ship will rush emergency supplies to us if we screw up.

I think you're underestimating the change needed to counter or prevent climate change.

Personally I think it's stupid to want to 'prevent' climate change. That's unlikely to even be possible as it's also a natural event. But there are certainly things like over-pollution and burning up of fossil fuels that can be reduced or changed...

But really... I don't see any sign of oil companies even wanting to change their way of making money. I'm sure the consumers will make sure all the oil will be gone before the more serious steps are being made changing to electric or bio-fuel cars.

After all, who's controlling the market? Automobile companies and oil companies and because there are a whole lot of people who drive cars, there will be a huge demand for fuel.

Changing that would mean changing cars of billions of people. That's simply not going to happen before the oil is gone.

Dont be sorry, you have earned your opinion by reading more than newspapers and TV.
Im not saying THE piece of paper Fielding is waving is important, but look back
for the documents it was pillaged from.

1) Im not saying its not a "greenhous" gas, but on a global scale, there are many natural factors resisting it.
After all, if CO2 has TRIPLED in the last 30 years, why havent we seen any "significant" climate change?
(PS Im freezing my tits off here while typing this!)
3) I saw this information YEARS ago, in scientific journals, not the daily telegraph.
Back then it did have scientists names attached to it, long before Fielding started waving it around.

After all who is to say the whole climate-change issue isnt the same as ONE article I saw over 10 yars ago.
A well-documented, researched and endorsed study by a well-respected (by scientists) article that showed
conclusivly that WATER CAUSES CANCER !!!! Since when he has never been heard of again.
Now either scientists are human and can make mistakes, or there is a conspiricy to hide
the dangers of water. Make up your own mind.

Any climatologist would argue 30 years is by far not long enough to be able to say anything useful about climate change in the long run. 30 years on a couple of billion years is nothing.

In fact, looking back at information about past time climate changes, we're really not in any danger at all. Did you know it used to be a whooping +10 degrees Celcius hotter in most places on Earth a couple of million years ago? Oh, and it had more to do with the Earth's orbit around the Sun and volcanic activity (plate tectonics-related stuff) than anything different.

I'm not convinced our current influence is a big as those two factors in the old days used to be.

Then again, obviously things will go wrong from the moment where our influence turns out to be irreversible.

Check this video :-

http://www.kranti.org/damage/environment.html

Al Gore is a hypocrite. Not even once did he mention in his documentary 'Inconvenient Truth' about the leading cause of global warming - the meat industry.

This video is a weired mix-up of different problems,

First it states, its about climate change (showing
the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean, how stupid is that?)

Then it lamentates about drinking water shortage.
(where drinking water is not something that can be exported
around the world, its a local commodity, and some regions
simply have more than others)

Also: hunger is a typical problem in countries with overpopulation,
obesity is a problem in countries with low population growth.
Figure out what the actual reasons for hunger are..

Rice fields are also a huge contributor to methane production,
this fact is not stated.
So there is no simple "You should eat this" as valid argument.

Nature works in mysterious ways but one thing is sure - you cannot go against it . There is no court where you can hold a trial against nature.
The whole idea of the documentary is to show that if we continue to misuse nature for long , then there shall be dire consequences. Thats why the video is titled Planetary Emergency.

The video is about promoting vegetarian diet.
And that with fuzzy line of arguments.

Look i havent read the whole post, and sometimes i come here to forum, and see this topic on the spotlight, and i never say something but now i wil..
all i have to tell is From what i know, global warming, is not caused by Co2 in the manner of pollution etc.

Global warming would happen even without humans here, its something natural, cyclical, etc, thats what warm us, our planet, to life be possible, on the beginning. and it also is happening with other planets. Its something Global.
The impact human has, is not that big deal, thats sort of a conspiracy.

but we cant start thinking everything is conspiracy, otherwise i would did suicide, let pretend things u see and hear, from tv, news, gov.. are the real scenario.

Well water causes alot of things. This is the major things you dont know (i guess):
- All water you consume is on fruits, or even your food, dont need to take more!

- First came the Clorine (Cl) which kills bacteria etc, but its bad to body..
the it isn't enough so added fluor:

-Fluor (F) causes damage to body organs, and many neural functioning. Though they know, they want to control you, so you be in this state of low "consciousness" low brain thinking... not too smart not to dull, and they say, well its good for your teeth, do you think its just that?

People who drink alot of water, will suffer in some way or another. I personally dont drink water, at all, only some juice from supermarkets, where i control the Cl ions, and NO Fluor for me. Fluor will cause flurosis...

They give you slowly a poison to you, and you will eventually die.

My answer in all short: Because we tend to choose the way that's more comfortable for us.We don't want think "what if it's true, then what?" situations, but instead we go along with: "you don't have any proof."

People shouldn't really ask why we are so slow, but what I can do to make the world a better place.. we're not here alone after all

The logic:
"Global warming is there, so it must be man made,
lets bee all better."
is not that convincing.

Though global warming is shown to happen,
it still needs to be researched, if and how much man made technology contributes to it.

Climate cycles happen all the time.
In fact, right now we are in a colder period of Earth climate history. The mean-temperatures change naturally.

Possible appropriate actions to reduce this current increase
must also be prooven.

For example:
lets say we find out that Carbon dioxide emmisions have only
a 5% impact on the warming.
But current agriculture has a 15% impact. (methane)
Then the focus must lie on changing agriculture technology and not
transportation technologies.

If the reasons are not understood, then
the (limited) economical options to change human technology application
cant be applied effectively.



This is a simplistic view.
People have to act economically, increasing our utility (well beeing). Not because they are bad or so,
but because if they would not, we would have never evolved
such strong civilizations. (we would not have evolved at all)

----

Another point:

there where stronger temperature changes than now over the last
5 thousand years of recorded history.
But only now (since 150 year) people do scientific observations
and reasonings about these changes.
So the current climate change is also mangified in perception,
simply beacuse we do actually think and prognose about this
issue now.

A vegetarian diet for what ? To save us from the fury of mother nature.
You may have facts that tell you that global warming is all a farce and I have facts that it is not a farce. So I wont comment any further on this as we will
never reach a conclusion.

look at the last slide of the video. It says "eat vegetarian"

we are so slow to act because the world didnt lift its ass!

Global warming is bullshit , there's more than enough evidence that shows it's a natural face the planet is going through which has nothing to do with our carbon emissions. The green movement is an abomination to the human race , and should be abolished. Same for the animal rights movement , ect... Pile of worthless humans whose loyalty belongs to everything other than the human race. They should all be tried for treason to our species. We didn't become the kings of this earth by being a pile of fucking faggots , we conquered it by fucking it in the ass. We have dominated all other species on this earth by killing them and taking all of their resources, and have escalated to our current level of living by exploiting the earth as much as we have been able to. We haven't come this far by being pussies , we have surpassed every other being on this earth in every form imaginable , and deserve to be above them. Green heads , animal rights heads , women rights heads, ect... are a disgrace to mankind , and our struggle, they have no right to live amongst us , and enjoy the luxuries we have earned for our people , and then spend their time criticizing them. All those mutherfuckers should just go live in the jungles , nobody is stopping them , they can all rejoin nature any time they want , just take off all your clothes and walk into the wilderness you love so much , see how long you last before a bear rapes you in the ass and mutilates you to pieces to share amongst it's family.

But no , all these putrid fuckers sit their and enjoy their computers and clothes and cars and light and their nicely packaged food from the grocery store , and them come and complain about the means used to achieve what they themselves enjoy so much. I wonder why anyone pays attention to these testicle-less idiots who more than likely had sex with their mother and a regular basis once they hit puberty.

So in conclusion , fuck the climate change pussies , as well as their other brother and sister organizations.

harsh words for someone who has no clue what he is talking about. that's typical. fair reasoning (mostly) on one side and swear words on the other - i haven't even read through all your post but should we ever meet in real life i'll bring you a bar of soap to wash your mouth out. i hope that people like you never get to decide about the future of our planet.

Terrible language indeed. But he's right.

Take a look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Before you tell me, yes, 2004 seems to have set an all time record for having the biggest increase in global temperature for several hundred years. But there's a few things you should notice other than that. See the huge increase in temperature we had during the middle ages? I'm pretty sure that people weren't driving cars then. But there was a huge increase in temperature nonetheless.

Or take a look at that big dip in the 1600's, or "The Mini Ice-age". In just 200 years the temperature of the earth sunk dramatically. And I don't think there was any significant change in the amount of CO2 we were emitting then, either.

Now we get to the big rise on the far right of the graph. It's tempting to think that all of our carbon emissions caused that big rise, but that's not true. Notice that it was a steady rise that began in the early 1900's, back when people still didn't have cars or even much electricity. The rate of the rise didn't even increase once we started using all of these new things. The rate of the rise remained steady.

What this should tell you is that nothing WE are doing seems to be affecting the temperature of the earth in any significant way. Rather, it seems to be a natural build up of carbon emissions; carbon emissions that will most likely decrease in a century or two through natural forces.

The funny thing about all this is, in the 1970's scientists were complaining that in a few dozen years we were going to have another ice age. Well, here we are and we don't seem to be going through any ice age. Now people have forgotten that little incident and are complaining about global warming. When this passes through and people realize that they were wrong again, they will probably start complaining about global freezing again.

It's all so stupid.

Did you notice that the graph is rising faster than never before on the right and that it is already warmer than in the middle ages? Temperature changes because of many factors, and something else might have caused the high temperature in the middle ages or the little ice age (maybe natural variaton of C02 concentration?). In fact, I don't know exactly what caused them, and I am humble enough not to ump into any conclusions about that, whithout even informing myself further about this.

It is a fact that it is proven that gases like CO2 act as greenhouse gases, which contribute to increasing temperatures. And we know that CO2 concentration went up and temperatures went up.

And if we act now, and we are wrong, we didn't cause any harm (except that it was WORK, omg...), but if we don't act now, but global warming is a fact, we doom ourselves.

(And what a coincidence that both global warming deniers here are from the USA. It would be an even bigger coincidence if they both the Republicans )

Has annyone heard of the Carbon TAX that is coming our way soon?
Reminds me of the joke i made some years ago:
We will all be wearing gasmasks with little meters on them to check how much air we each breathe and be charged for it.

Did you notice that the use of all of our newest inventions don't seem to coincide with any of these things?


Exactly my point. CO2 concentrations can rise due to natural causes, too.


Yup, you're right.

I am NOT saying that CO2 does not trap energy and that the earth has not been heating up. I am saying that it hasn't been heating up because WE did anything. And if ALL of our CO2 emissions aren't affecting the temperature of the earth in any significant way, what makes you think we can lower the temperature of the earth?


Umm, wrong. We would've have wasted valuable materials and an insurmountable amount of time, to say the least. There are lots of people who have made it a political issue too, causing people to support causes that they don't really understand. During the 2008 elections, Obama made Global Warming an issue. There were many people who voted for him just because he promised to "correct" it. If Global Warming hadn't been made into such an issue in the first place, maybe that wouldn't have been such a buzz word during the elections.

Global warming is now just a tool that is being used by politicians to control the people. That is just wrong.


Right now, it's WAY too early to know if global warming is a fact or not. Our scientists are jumping to conclusions. Sure, I suppose it's been hotter than usual lately, but the Earth does that. And what makes you think we can do anything about it anyway?


So what if I'm from America? Have you totally forgotten that our leaders in America are now doing everything in their power to FIGHT global warming? Not that I want to be a part of it, of course.

Oh, and I am not a registered Republican. I have held support for many republicans before though, simply because they've shared more realistic and conservative views than the democrats. Oh, and as long as we're profiling people on this forum by what political parties they support, I bet you were a supporter of Obama during the 2008 elections. I wonder how that turned out. Still holding out for the "Hopey/Changey" thing?

in my opinion it doesn't really matter if anthropogenic global warming is true or not. the things that "supposedly" cause global warming are bad in many other ways too and it wouldn't be that hard to reduce them...

...but in the grand scheme of things all of this doesn't matter anyway since earth is a self-regulatory system and the human race will get what it deserves.

edit:
i just came across this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0vnRmej0Q
kind of related...

We know that the C02 rise is caused by us, because all our cars, etc emit CO2, which was saved in plants that died millions of years ago.

"Did you notice that the use of all of our newest inventions don't seem to coincide with any of these things?"
No, I didn't. In fact, I noticed that the number of cars, factories etc. went up and so did the CO2 levels and the temperature.


"And if ALL of our CO2 emissions aren't affecting the temperature of the earth in any significant way, what makes you think we can lower the temperature of the earth?"
I never said that we could actually cool down the Earth. We can only slow down global warming, but we can't reverse it.


I did say "(except that it was WORK, omg...)" but you omitted that in your quote...
The costs of investions in renewable energies and stuff are nothing compared to the consequences if we keep on emitting so much CO2.




That was actually a side-note of mine, that's why it was in brackets. But ok, if it angers you so much:
In general I don't have prejudices because of someone because of his nationality (or anything else). But, although Obama may fight global warming now, the USA is still one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters. But that wasn't even what made me pass that comment.
What made me pass that comment was that the most of the global warming deniers I have met or heard about were Americans, and Republicans, and it seems that this also often correlates with creationism (and creationists are also usually americans, and especially conservatives). conservapedia.com also denies gloabal warming (and evolution).
So my comment's purpose was to underline that correlation between (American) conservatism and global warming denial. (Because I could guess you are conservative )


And you should know that I don't think you are a worse game designer because you are American or conservative.

"but should we ever meet in real life i'll bring you a bar of soap to wash your mouth out. i hope that people like you never get to decide about the future of our planet"

LOL , sure Joey , u'd get ur head split in 2. And people like myself have been deciding over the planet since the beginning of time , hence our success over all other animals and nature. People like you want to live in the wilderness amongst the bears and worms and sleep in a bed of cockroaches while covered in your own feces, that , is not the idea of life for the rest of us. I still don't know why the green head homosexuals don't go and pursue their dreams of living amongst nature and go live in the wilderness. Why the constant criticism of what everyone does but then continue to live amongst our society. Fucking hypocrites.

But yeah , global warming is a scam , and all you supporters get ready to bend over and take the carbon tax with a big smile on your face, it's because of you weak minded retards that everyone is gonna have to pay. And on top of the carbon tax , they have the green police , so we will soon be tasered for using too much electricity.

It's all a big pile of garbage , I don't see how people can be so stupid not to realize it, all the global warming green movement is going to bring is more taxes , more regulations , and a further grip on the average person and their doings. Again , we give more control to the government so it can protect us because we are too scared of everything , soon they're going to have to create a special government unit to come bathe us and brush our teeth to make sure we are clean and don't get any cavities. Pile of faggots.

... Anyway.



What you said just there doesn't even make sense. Just because something happens and another thing happens after it doesn't mean the first occurrence caused the second occurrence. You're just arguing with the statistics now.

Let me simplify it for you:

-In the early 1900's, a steady increase in temperature began.

-In the 1930's, technology took off and people started driving cars, creating coal power plants, etc. Carbon emissions went up.

-We know that CO2 traps heat. So more CO2 will cause the temperature to rise even faster, right?

-We refer back to the graph. The temperature has increased since the 1930's! However, the RATE of the increase of temperature did NOT go up.

We know that more CO2 would've caused the rate of the increase of temperature to go up. So the temperature should've been higher than it is if the CO2 we have been emitting has taken any effect. But it's not. What does this tell us? It tells us that the amount of CO2 we've been emitting is not enough to have any significant impact on the rate of the increase of temperature on the earth.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Yes, the earth has gotten warmer. Yes, we've been emitting CO2. But that CO2 is not what is creating the rise in temperature. There's just not enough of it to have an impact. The higher temperatures are being created through natural forces, and we shouldn't try to stop them. Eventually, the system will correct itself and the temperature will lower again.

uhm... you are aware that the industrial revolution did start before 1930, right?

@ Why_Do_I_Die
At least you seem to be aware.
BUT, it makes no sense to be rude to others, especially when they need to see what you see, in fact it will turn them away from what you have to say.
Just say what you have to say, and leave it at that.
People travel this path of life in their own time, and those who are ready for what you say, will at least start to think about it, those who are not, will not be convinced by any rudeness or anger.
So just give the info, that is what makes the world(people) change, little by little.

I wonder what you want to change with an attitude of ignorance? Maybe you are right and people are not guilty of warming, but why should someone convince other people to ignore something?

Many people could say to us: Hey, ignore game-making. This is a multi-billion market of very big companies. You will not stand the tiniest chance.

But apart from this I wonder about another thing: What happens when we destroyed too much vegetation on our planet. It is producing the oxygen we are breathing. And it is assimilating the CO2. What if we dont have enough of it? It could destroy the balance rapidly. Maybe we will suffer lots of problems because of bad air. This could be much worse than global warming.
Maybe for each car we have to grow a certain amount of trees and bushes.

The global warming will stop itself. The gulf stream will stop moving, this will result in not carrying warm air/water to the north and thus a new ice age will come.

@ Machinery_Frank

I am not sure if you understood what i posted. If so then i am not understanding what you replied.

What i mean is:
If anyone has information that they think is important to the world or anyone else, just give the information.
Dont try to force it on others, dont even get angry if people refuse it.
People come into knowledge in their own time regardless of how much or how little someone else pushes or hides that knowledge.
See, the knowledge is all around, about and inside of us all, and it is up to each individual to find and analyse that knowledge for thamselves.
//

Yes many people could and some most probably do, thay does not mean you have to follow what they say.
Ergo we all decide for ourselves when and what we take on or reject, and to try to push something or even reject something in rudeness and bad-mouthing someone else does not make any sense to me.
//
Ignorance is a two edged sword.

Pararealist:
Yes, I understood what you mean. Actually I like this approach to not to try to convince everyone about our own "superior" beliefs. I am on your side here.

But I found it only a bit unfitting to this special case, where someone tries to convince other people to ignore environment pollution. And you tell him that people will learn this lesson with time.
I am more thinking that people will learn a lesson the other way around when they cannot bath in the rivers any more, when they cannot catch any fish in the same rivers, when the air smells bad and when you have dust around you like a thick smog.
Maybe this is not so evident in big countries like US, China or Russia. But here in Europe we already experienced a lot of this.

Ah i see.
Sadly it seems that learning from experience always seem to be connected with suffering.
At least i hope they will be some survivors who learn from what happens.
Earth history is surely not heading towards its first catastrophe, whether it be global warming, or as i believe it is those who use "global warming" for their own greedy purposes like taxes, and i am sure that before the previous catastrophes many did try to warn, but they happened anyway.
//
This may seem pessimistic but this is the life we live and the world we live in. Gradual changes are a part of the human existance it seems.

http://derstandard.at/1277338393364/Vide...andel-Skeptiker

I don't want an other thread to be hijacked to become a god discussion, destroying the original topic, so I moved Joquan's post and all its replies to a new thread. This thread is only about global warming, so please don't go off-topic here again.

That is really just pure speculation. Nature will react either way, whether slow or fast really doesn't matter.

Besides, you can bet your healthy life alternative energy sources will be and in fact already are being exploited for similarly high prizes even when costs involved are actually lower (I don't think that's true either).

These markets are designed around profits, not designed around what's best for nature... not even the green stuff. Just look at the other pollution that is involved with those 'alternatives'. I don't think it's right to categorize them as alternative energy, when in reality it still isn't pollution free.

I'm pretty sure it's because of how our economies work that it will be too late by the time everyone's actually really motivated to start some proper change in this world as far as waste deposition and fossil fuel sources goes.

Don't be fooled, not even the seemingly 'for free' solar energy is waste and pollution free.

Hey, what I always wondered... many people say that "others" should act to slow global warming. For example, it's easy enough to go ranting about everyone polluting the environment, but then the same people who rant also drive their BMWs and don't worry about the amount of fuel their next car uses. What I've been thinking about for quite some time:
Have there been any studies you know of which show how much CO2 the population produces on a daily basis as opposed to the industry? Or how much oil is used in private cars and how much for industrial machinery? Any comparison between the average person and the averagy industrial power plant?

That's not quite comparable, because all the pollution from the industry counts to your footprint. You can't just point a finger at the industry, because it's us they're producing their goods for.