I wouldn’t challenge the statement that humans are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions. What I will challenge is the significance of that statement. Temperature rises have been very moderate (about a degree per century) and at the same time the sun has been giving off more heat. We can recognize this from the melting ice caps on mars. Why do we think that “millions of tons” of CO2 is so significant in a body as big as the earth. Why are we so concerned about exponential rises in CO2 when the warming due to CO2 is logarithmic?
Breaking News-Humans 'not to blame' for climate change
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
I wouldn’t challenge the statement that humans are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions. What I will challenge is the significance of that statement. Temperature rises have been very moderate (about a degree per century) and at the same time the sun has been giving off more heat. We can recognize this from the melting ice caps on mars. Why do we think that “millions of tons” of CO2 is so significant in a body as big as the earth. Why are we so concerned about exponential rises in CO2 when the warming due to CO2 is logarithmic?
I also am looking for facts. Facts that cannot be disputed but there is still a long way to go. Earth is in a constant state of change, climate and continents change and they are trying to tell us we can stop this.
They have locked onto something that we have all noticed, the climate is warming but not because of us. What are they trying to hide with all this hype? Something is going on and it is not the climate, we better take a hard look.
They have locked onto something that we have all noticed, the climate is warming but not because of us. What are they trying to hide with all this hype? Something is going on and it is not the climate, we better take a hard look.
Last edited:
What is going on is that people are willing to believe anything that forwards their interest. There is so much within the environmental movement that reflects the modern western world view that people choose not to question it. It is about the end justifying the means. We believe industry pollutes too much so attack the greatest symbol of industrialization.
Industry is deemed evil, so the symbol of industry is evil. It goes deeper though. Kayto encompasses our belief in scarcity and inequality of wealth so instead of producing more for everyone we try to take down the rich to help the poor. Kayto also reflects our ideas of sin and forgiveness. A major tenant of Christianity is that we our born into sin and we must repent. Today we believe our sin is industry and we repent by buying carbon credits.
I say:
Oh big brother save me
For I have raped the
Earth for my cloths
I have made her cry
With my breath
Oh big brother
Spare your rage
I try to be worthy of thee
I suppress those who
Deny thee
I give to the system
Which supports me
Oh big brother I thank thee
For the labor that came from me
Through the grace of the food you have been kind to spare me
For light which you gave to me
And the warmth you bring me
I will never take more then you ration me
I will never doubt there is scarcity
Those charlatans who think they create
And do not believe it is the earth they rape
I pray for you to save them
From the evil which corrupt them
And the hope which deludes them
Oh the chaos they hope for
With too much wealth
To need to work for
The greed that they see
Where everyone lives in plenty and is free
Will never be the utopia and glee
as what land would they ration to me
you know what is best for we
happenies is our service to thee
Poverty is our salvation you see
Wealth is our damnation
We must resist the temptation
To steel from the generations
Last edited:
I disagree. We can sit here and point fingers till we all turn blue. We can sit here until everyone agrees that clomate change has an effect on people, as you say. But pointing fingers and agreeing that climate change is effective doesn't do anything. What will make a difference is getting people to actually minimize or eliminate harmful activities. Educate them and get them off their asses long enough to treat our home properly.
That's what I was saying, yes.
It was my example of how screwy consensuses can be.
Right, the consensus of 2500 scientists. Consensus has no business in science. It's irrelevant. The fad is all the panicmongering and whatnot that goes on because of what scientists are saying. Thought you would have picked up on that.
I am an engineer and I consider myself to be a scientist of sorts. There are times, with some problems, when you want the confirmation of your solution by your peers. That is a form of consensus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I read the IPCC reports and what they contained is hard, cold, numbers. Numbers that weren't meant to sooth anyone. The message was that global warming is real and we all had better get off our backsides and do something about it. It wasn't panicmongering. I didn't think the message was strong enough.
Ah yes he doesn't agree with you so he must be a dumb F**k. Good call juan, I see nothing changes in your lil world.
I've heard this "I'm an engineer" thing a few times. Yet you believe structural steel is 6" thick, you have very lil critical thought, unlike many in "your field" have on the subject and contiuously resort to insinuating that anyone that dissagrees with you is somehow mentally dificient. The latter is the only thing you've done that is remotely engineer like.
The vast majority of CO2 in our atmosphere comes from plants, soil and the ocean. The vast majority of O2 in our atmosphere comes from the respiration of plants.
I tend to agree with Walter and not just because he has such a cool name. The icecaps on Mars are melting also,and I don't think that humans are responsible for that at all. Unless,that little rover we sent up smokes oil like a 72 Pinto. Of course,we all should be aware of our polluting habits and curtail them.I consider myself an enviromentalist,of sorts. I have the same credentials as Suzuki,(none),he is a zoologist.The only people who consider this debate closed are the ones who do not want all the facts presented.That is not very scientific at all.
Last edited:
No, but it is irrelevant to the science itself. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are not affected by whether a majority of people believe in them or not. If one lone scientist out of the thousands of thousands on the planet can produce evidence to prove that something is fact, it is fact whether he's believed or not.
Michael Mann produced cold hard facts, too.
Of course warming is real.
Doing something about our activities will work: whining about what is to blame won't do a thing.
Unfortunately, scientists do put forth news that is susceptible to people who find pleasure in panicmongering. It's an unfortunate reality.
This fear generated by groups isn't concerned with the environment - they are looking at the huge benefits of having taxation on energy use.
It has nothing to do with the air and its' purity or temperature - it has to do with that old enemy of mankind - the raising of money.
It has nothing to do with the air and its' purity or temperature - it has to do with that old enemy of mankind - the raising of money.
Ok, this is what bugs me. Whether or not we can stop global warming isn't the issue here. The majority of it really could be outside our cause, yadda yadda, blah blah.
But in terms of Carbon, this bothers me. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You don't really understand the concept, but you allow yourself to be swayed by tidbits of information without any concept of their context.
How much CO2 we burn is irrelevant. We could drive vehicles which belch biodiesel smoke out the back all day every day. And never cause any warming due to CO2 (which does happen, other causes may contribute to more warming, but CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its the core of our biosphere and all science in biology, get over it)
We could also have the most advanced, low emission cars burning fossil fuels, and eventually, the earth would warm.
The problem isn't the amount of Carbon burned, its the amount of NEW carbon added to the biosphere.
Think of the Biosphere as a closed system (which it is) circulating carbon around in circles. Like water in a Hydraulic system.
When you burn wood, ethanol, corn, etc, you are just moving around the carbon. You remove it from the ground (stored in the plants) , put it in the air, then new plants use it to grow..storing it again.
Perfect cycle.
With fossil fuels, you dig up carbon that has been removed from the closed system. The last time it was part of the biosphere was during the time of the dinosaurs..when the whole planet was a steamy jungle. AKA, it was far warmer.
And you add this new carbon into a closed system, like injecting more water into a Hydraulic system.
This is why breathing and cow farts can eject such massive carbon into the air and not affect our climate.
Its not about how much carbon is in the air, that is critical to our entire planet living. The problem is how much NEW carbon is injected into the air.
more Carbon means more heat and more plantlife. Turning the place into the steamy jungle it used to be.
While the sun may be causing more warming, we can control that too. Simpley push more carbon underground and cool the planet.
Whether or not we are the cause, the planet is still warming and we have the ability to stop it. Bickering about it is pointless. Its like refusing to use a fire extinguisher until you and your friend solve an arguement over who caused the fire.
Bitch later, fix now.
Zzarchov,that actually makes more sense than the rest of this forum and many others on climate change combined. Well done.
How is it that Walter has 1 rep box after only 48 posts,while you have 4 after 5,000 posts? Possibly being full of bologna is much better than being full of blather.
A simplified version of this thread.
It's irony people. What it means is Global warming do exsit.
Carbon dioxide come from anywhere with living beings and non-living things through chemical changes.
We have too much of Carbon dioxide and other chemicals of odd names and percularities or oddities than normal earth should have.
This excess of odd things whatever you like to call it causes the earth to act bizerc.
Overall, the temperature rises.
But, the strange thing is, the place that is suppose to be hot, gets cold.
The place that is suppose to be cold gets hot.
There is drought and floods at places where it normally shouldn't be.
My guess is because of the hotter temperature, the weather is getting kind of haphazard.
It's irony people. What it means is Global warming do exsit.
Carbon dioxide come from anywhere with living beings and non-living things through chemical changes.
We have too much of Carbon dioxide and other chemicals of odd names and percularities or oddities than normal earth should have.
This excess of odd things whatever you like to call it causes the earth to act bizerc.
Overall, the temperature rises.
But, the strange thing is, the place that is suppose to be hot, gets cold.
The place that is suppose to be cold gets hot.
There is drought and floods at places where it normally shouldn't be.
My guess is because of the hotter temperature, the weather is getting kind of haphazard.