World Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

[BlowingKush]

Human beings are ignorant creatures.
Look at the dust bowl.

We destroy mass amounts of vegetation so we can plant corn,
and then act suprised when the greatest ecological disaster in U.S. history occurs.
Sand and dust storms on massive scales, which self perpetuate.

Humans can and do affect the enviroment. The past is prologue.

Anyone who believes releasing 2.3 million years of sub-surface carbon in a period of 60 years without having serious consequences is truely fucking ignorant.

now go vote for Sarah Palin and act really fucking suprised for me 30 years from now when worldwide famine sets in, and the bread baskets of this world are to unstable to crop.

Oh ya, did I mention half the trees on the planet have now been deforested? Forgot about that one.
oh well, its only half.

 

[esb]

So is the earth half empty or half full of trees?

 

[Jedimindtrixxx]

So is the earth half empty or half full of trees?

depends on who you ask
environmentalists will tell you its half empty
businessmen will say its half full

 

[AnthraxXx]

depends on who you ask
environmentalists will tell you its half empty
businessmen will say its half full

Nicely Put!

i really dont get the argument...

why do people think global warming is a scare tactic?
why would someone just make up global warming?
who has something to gain by making people believing in global warming?
if humans are not causing an increase in global temperatures, why would it be a bad thing to reduce carbon emissions?
would it be a bad thing to try to decrease global temperatures or to try to slow their rise?
would it be a bad thing to try to conserve nonrenewable resources and explore cleaner alternatives?
isnt it possible that humans arent the sole cause but rather a small part of it?

1. For you to buy stuff.
2. Profit.
3. Anyone who profits.
4. It's not.
5. Probably not, just let nature do its thing.
6. Certainly not.
7. Certainly possible.

One conclusion that I have made from all that I have read is that A LOT of the numbers that you read about are either taken INCREDIBLY out of context or are obtained by questionable means. The science is so hard to prove for a lot of these things and if you have some knowledge of the scientific process, then you can tell that many of the studies do not have adequate control groups. In fact, it's hard to get an adequate control group when there is only one earth...

+rep, How correct you are. There are so many inaccuracies and flaws in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" it's ridiculous how he managed to win a Nobel Peace prize. Many countries to not allow this 'documentary' to be shown in schools unless teachers offer an "opposing view" afterwards.

 

[Dan]

So is the earth half empty or half full of trees?

I lol'd

Quote:
Originally Posted by esb
So is the earth half empty or half full of trees?
depends on who you ask
environmentalists will tell you its half empty
businessmen will say its half full

I lol'd again.

 

[ElderKingpin]

the way i see it is... yes global warming exists, but its not going to kill us nor is global cooling if that comes up again. Although global warming and cooling wont be killing us, we should always try to protect and care for the planet on which we live because passing it onto the next generation isnt going to help

 

[YourFace]

It's as real as 2012. You decide how real that is

 

[FireCat]

It's as real as 2012. You decide how real that is

QTF :thup:

 

[HappyPeasant]

i really dont get the argument...

why do people think global warming is a scare tactic?
why would someone just make up global warming?
who has something to gain by making people believing in global warming?
if humans are not causing an increase in global temperatures, why would it be a bad thing to reduce carbon emissions?
would it be a bad thing to try to decrease global temperatures or to try to slow their rise?
would it be a bad thing to try to conserve nonrenewable resources and explore cleaner alternatives?
isnt it possible that humans arent the sole cause but rather a small part of it?

EDIT: these are my honest questions, i am not being sarcastic.

You have a lot of good points there but people do gain money from scaring people. Like those post a little further up the page the government from countless countries can add a tax to emissions and corperations involved in researching it can request money for further research.

 

[phyrex1an]

The number 2035 is a misquotation. Or rather a correct quotation of a misquotation.

The paper "Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale" states that in the year 2350 the non polar ice sheets would be reduced by 80%, this number was the misquoted by WWF to 2035 and even later quoted by IPCC (according to wikipedia).
So, as usual, newspapers fails at checking the sources that even a couple of seconds of following citations can find (that or they just want to lie to you to get advertisement money).

TL;DR: The scientists says 2350, the non-scientist government organ says 2035.