Org Mobile Site
Thread: Global Warming
I am curious to see views the Orgahs hold on global warming, mainly in a fact-finding manner, though I will be quite pleased if it develops into a debate (which it usually does).
In addition, do you think that the "global warming exists" lobby is given unfair press?
Voting is public.
In addition, do you think that the "global warming exists" lobby is given unfair press?
Voting is public.
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
That's pretty much option number four. I considered making this about climate change as a whole, and if voters in the poll would prefer that then I suppose I can ask someone to change it.I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
I vote:
Global warming exists, manmade causes exist, non-made causes exist, global warming is a cult, denying global warming is a cynical lobby; and lastly, like so many controversial issues, debate is stifled by the lunatic fringes.
Edit, make that, the lunatic fringes are the majority, at least they shout so loudly and so unintereptedly, that they appear to be a majority. I blame the internets.
Global warming exists, manmade causes exist, non-made causes exist, global warming is a cult, denying global warming is a cynical lobby; and lastly, like so many controversial issues, debate is stifled by the lunatic fringes.
Edit, make that, the lunatic fringes are the majority, at least they shout so loudly and so unintereptedly, that they appear to be a majority. I blame the internets.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
Put me down for this one.I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
It does exist and man has greatly sped up a natural process. It is in that increase that the danger lies.
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Put me down for this one.
Option #4 then? Put me down for this one.
I'm sure our current levels of pollution are not great for the earth, but global warming has turned into a global cult using Al-Gore type material as its sermon.
I voted for the 2nd one.
I voted for the 2nd one.
I agree that pollution and smog are problems that should be dealt with, very much so. I don't, however, think that global warming (whether it exists in the manner Al Gore thinks it does or not) is what should be driving the solutions to these problems. Basically, I feel that there's much ado about very little, and it's distracting us from actual environmental problems - smog and pollution. That's why I voted for option four.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
agreed.I like:
"Global warming exists; global cooling exists; our ability to manage either is greatly exaggerated."
on the subject of press coverage of global warming, i note the alarmists are complaining about how much coverage the skeptics get.
Originally Posted by Furunculu5:
on the subject of press coverage of global warming, i note the alarmists are complaining about how much coverage the skeptics get.
I think that's mostly because they want the skeptics to get none instead of only a little. on the subject of press coverage of global warming, i note the alarmists are complaining about how much coverage the skeptics get.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
I agree that pollution and smog are problems that should be dealt with, very much so. I don't, however, think that global warming (whether it exists in the manner Al Gore thinks it does or not) is what should be driving the solutions to these problems. Basically, I feel that there's much ado about very little, and it's distracting us from actual environmental problems - smog and pollution. That's why I voted for option four.
I'd generally agree with those statements.I agree that pollution and smog are problems that should be dealt with, very much so. I don't, however, think that global warming (whether it exists in the manner Al Gore thinks it does or not) is what should be driving the solutions to these problems. Basically, I feel that there's much ado about very little, and it's distracting us from actual environmental problems - smog and pollution. That's why I voted for option four.
Lets point out the bias from the start:
Posting it in the Backroom (Politics) rather then the Frontroom | Science (Science) you have already pre-empted it as a political movement.
For a bit of science content. Which is the hottest planet in the Solar System?
=][=
For my opinion Louis says it all.
Posting it in the Backroom (Politics) rather then the Frontroom | Science (Science) you have already pre-empted it as a political movement.
For a bit of science content. Which is the hottest planet in the Solar System?
=][=
For my opinion Louis says it all.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
Lets point out the bias from the start:
Posting it in the Backroom (Politics) rather then the Frontroom | Science (Science) you have already pre-empted it as a political movement.
It can easily degenerate into a political debate, from previous experiences. Lets point out the bias from the start:
Posting it in the Backroom (Politics) rather then the Frontroom | Science (Science) you have already pre-empted it as a political movement.
Had the backroom existed in the 70's, we'd be debating the same environmental hysteria - only in the opposite direction.
Heh. True. And ZPG too.
Global Warming? No.
Global Climate Change? Maybe to Yes.
Global Climate Change? Maybe to Yes.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
I vote:
Global warming exists, manmade causes exist, non-made causes exist, global warming is a cult, denying global warming is a cynical lobby; and lastly, like so many controversial issues, debate is stifled by the lunatic fringes.
Edit, make that, the lunatic fringes are the majority, at least they shout so loudly and so unintereptedly, that they appear to be a majority. I blame the internets.
Wow, I could not have put it better.I vote:
Global warming exists, manmade causes exist, non-made causes exist, global warming is a cult, denying global warming is a cynical lobby; and lastly, like so many controversial issues, debate is stifled by the lunatic fringes.
Edit, make that, the lunatic fringes are the majority, at least they shout so loudly and so unintereptedly, that they appear to be a majority. I blame the internets.
Seems everyone's a scientist these days.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Yet whenever I want to discuss any theory which doesn't step on anyone's political philosophy everyone seems strangely shy. Merits and flaws of string theory, anyone? Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics versus many worlds hypothesis?
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Yet whenever I want to discuss any theory which doesn't step on anyone's political philosophy everyone seems strangely shy. Merits and flaws of string theory, anyone? Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics versus many worlds hypothesis?
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat:
Global Warming? No.
Global Climate Change? Maybe to Yes.
are you saying there is no global warming trend, or that that trend is not anthropogenic to any significant degree?Global Warming? No.
Global Climate Change? Maybe to Yes.
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
Seems everyone's a scientist these days.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Yet whenever I want to discuss any theory which doesn't step on anyone's political philosophy everyone seems strangely shy. Merits and flaws of string theory, anyone? Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics versus many worlds hypothesis?
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Amen, I voted the first option as it appears to be the mainstream take within scientific institutions.Seems everyone's a scientist these days.
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Yet whenever I want to discuss any theory which doesn't step on anyone's political philosophy everyone seems strangely shy. Merits and flaws of string theory, anyone? Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics versus many worlds hypothesis?
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
They're called flood plains for a reason- they flood. If you choose to live on a flood plain, you have to be willing to accept the risks.Hmph. Suffice it to say I will not be buying a house on a flood plain any time soon.
Originally Posted by :
Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
Do you think most scientists believe that man-made global warming is a looming disaster?Quite what makes people think that holding a strong political opinion qualifies them to know more about science than the actual scientists escapes me.
That doesn't really have much to do with global warming though. The area I live in experienced it's worst floods in the 1970s, back when we were concerned with global cooling.
I voted the last option- I don't think any of them exactly square with my views, but it's probably closer than the others. I'll allow for the possibility that CO2 is having a significant impact on our climate, but even still I don't think it's catastrophic, nor is there anything we can do to meaningfully impact it.
I don't much care what politicians have to say on the matter, scientists seem to mostly support the theory therefore i support the theory...
I went for option 1 but i didn't quite want something that extreme, something close to 1 but less further from 2, put me down as going for option 1.2 or 1.3
I went for option 1 but i didn't quite want something that extreme, something close to 1 but less further from 2, put me down as going for option 1.2 or 1.3
What ended the last Great Ice age? Cavemen farts? How did the Romans grow grapes in Britain? We thing too highly of ourselves to think we can have such an effect on nature. Green is the new Red. All the commies and anticapitalist socialists have hidden their agenda behind this fraud because the Soviet Union failed. Green is the new Red, and like the Reds, the very few PROFIT from the miseries of millions. The truelly poor will be truelly ####** if these clowns get their way...
My favorite Bull **** episode (warning foul language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE
My favorite Bull **** episode (warning foul language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InQzsLltHE
Voted 2nd option here. Think its a real threat, but not gonna be a very imminent threat
Edit: I think this kind of topic will really never get anywhere online since it is near impossible to change the opinions of anyone who is really set on it through this medium. Best way to do things is to wait out a decade, take a look back, and then promtly set out to flame the side that lost(as in true internet fashion)
Edit: I think this kind of topic will really never get anywhere online since it is near impossible to change the opinions of anyone who is really set on it through this medium. Best way to do things is to wait out a decade, take a look back, and then promtly set out to flame the side that lost(as in true internet fashion)
I voted 2. Though I think it is a major problem, it wont kill us all so it does not fit into the "holy crap, here it comes, run for the hills" category.
Originally Posted by :
are you saying there is no global warming trend, or that that trend is not anthropogenic to any significant degree?
I'm saying that there is no 'global warming trend'. There is global climate change, and while some is no doubt derived from humans, I think we still don't understand this world we live on and there could be hidden factors at work here that we can't explain or even identify at this juncture in time. are you saying there is no global warming trend, or that that trend is not anthropogenic to any significant degree?
I don't believe that we can, right now, correctly identify humans as the main source of this global climate change. I don't believe this because humans still don't know everything. My prime example is from when I went to Crete.
At Knossos, have the Minoan Linear A script, a script of human language that has not yet been deciphered by modern humans. How are we to say that we understand the great world we live on, while we cannot yet identify what these symbols meant to an ancient human civilization? We don't know everything, and we probably never will. So, I'm going to say a 'cautious skeptic'. I'd rather die a Christian and go to Heaven than die an Atheist and go to Hell.
I have to say that I feel most like Kukrikhan on this one.
Global temperatures are definitely on the increase. However whether this is down to us, or whether we are even a major cause remains to be seen. In my Medieval History units opening lecture our lecturer showed a graph of average temperatures in Europe over the years that humans have been in existance. There was a pretty regular pattern, and we should be in a warming period right now. Of course there are other considerations, such as carbon pollution and she said that there is no guarantee that we aren't destroying our planet and that this (climate change on the scale we are seeing) shouldn't be happening, but we do know that sometime about 1100AD the world suddenly, and for no apparent reason began to get colder, and the average temperature was around what it is now, if not a little bit higher.
It follows that there is clearly a lot of scare-mongering. Anyone else sceptical of the whole, if we stop eating meat and massacre our livestock there will be less carbon pollution and we can all stop worrying?
Global temperatures are definitely on the increase. However whether this is down to us, or whether we are even a major cause remains to be seen. In my Medieval History units opening lecture our lecturer showed a graph of average temperatures in Europe over the years that humans have been in existance. There was a pretty regular pattern, and we should be in a warming period right now. Of course there are other considerations, such as carbon pollution and she said that there is no guarantee that we aren't destroying our planet and that this (climate change on the scale we are seeing) shouldn't be happening, but we do know that sometime about 1100AD the world suddenly, and for no apparent reason began to get colder, and the average temperature was around what it is now, if not a little bit higher.
It follows that there is clearly a lot of scare-mongering. Anyone else sceptical of the whole, if we stop eating meat and massacre our livestock there will be less carbon pollution and we can all stop worrying?
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat:
I'm saying that there is no 'global warming trend'. There is global climate change, and while some is no doubt derived from humans, I think we still don't understand this world we live on and there could be hidden factors at work here that we can't explain or even identify at this juncture in time.
I don't believe that we can, right now, correctly identify humans as the main source of this global climate change.
it seems natural to me that there should be a warming trend as we are still exiting a glacial period.I'm saying that there is no 'global warming trend'. There is global climate change, and while some is no doubt derived from humans, I think we still don't understand this world we live on and there could be hidden factors at work here that we can't explain or even identify at this juncture in time.
I don't believe that we can, right now, correctly identify humans as the main source of this global climate change.
agreed.
It's definitely happening, most likely a combination of us and natural climate change, and is a serious and imminent threat if you happen to live by the sea or on a low lying island. Do i care? No.
Years of it being constantly thrown at us by the media that the end is nigh has made me completely apathetic to the threat of global warming. I just don't care anymore.
Years of it being constantly thrown at us by the media that the end is nigh has made me completely apathetic to the threat of global warming. I just don't care anymore.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO