Global Warming, Is it the end of the world?

Exactly what I've been saying all along. I'm glad others see this as well.
When the Norse colonized Greenland around 1000AD they farmed there. But 450 years later they had to abandon those colonies because the climate had change to the point they were getting 85% of their foods from the sea and had to import grains for bread. It was no longer feasible to raise livestock.
And that "cold" cycle didn't end until the mid 1800s. Yes! We ARE warming, for NOW, but it will turn again.

I read about glacial core samples which prove these climatic cycles go back many tens of thousands of years. I will look for the article again.

Slàinte,    

Patch   

Patch;

I tend to agree that Global Warming is cyclic but I also believe that man made polution is helping to speed it up.The Arctic Ice is melting 4 times more rapidly than what would occur in a natural cycle.



Camac.

We are probably approaching the capacity of our planet to support human life. That can not help. It is my understanding that the "ice cores" in storage indicate both rapid warming (decomposition of massive amounts of organic matter?) and slow warming. Only history will prove what was really the cause at this time. All it takes is one really big volcanic eruption or similar calamity to move the climate to a cooling cycle.

Slàinte,  

Patch   

What annoys me the most about global warming is that lots of adults come to us kids and say "You have to change it, I screwed it up and you have to fix it" that's not fair, you're still alive so you can help. Another one that ticks me off is "It's not gonna happen in my lifetime so why do I care" Well, it WILL happen in MY lifetime. Here in Jackson we have this thing that was started last year call GWHL (global warming heroes leauge) I was all for joining it but it was for 7th+ graders last year this year I'm in 7th grade and I was the first person in the meeting for it. We did votes for who would hold office right of the bat, and only the popular kids got elected, I know them, and I can almost guarantee that all of them will quit by the third meeting they joined to be with thier friends not to help the world. The kid who got elected vice president doesn't even believe global warming exists, I've heard it out of his mouth at least times. I don't mind that they're gonna be in charge if they'll do a good job and actually work. But somehow, I don't think they will and all the people (probably considered the "Nerds") will do all the work, but it's gonna pay off in the end, I know it is...

I didn't read through all eight pages of posts, so I don't know if anything like this has been said or not but I'll say it anyway.

The biggest problem with global warming/climate change is not "Is it man made?" or "What should be done about it?" or "Will it destroy all life on Earth?" but rather the science getting politicized. Politicized science is a severely dangerous thing. As Alston Chase said, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to a quest for power."

Hallo,
who has seen this movie(about the Global Warming) : "An inconvenient truth" by D. Guggenheim with Al Gore as protagonist? It's really interesting.
Slainte
Iolanda

Well, whaddya know - Pres Elect Obama sits down with the Tennessee Twit to discuss global warming before even taking office. Its telling that he eshews true scientists and gets his information from Gore! Talk about a secondary source - its laughable. Oh well....a gripe in the wilderness.

They ALL ignore the truth when it suits them! Whether it is the LACK of WMD or the LIE of global warming.

I agree with this statement as well Skeleman...it is obvious that global warming has become a politicize issue and a propaganda with television as a medium for any who would crack for all this BS...

Even with "men made pollution" or "over population" global warming is a cycle in earth's life and history. If we go back millions of years ago when the planet was shaping itself...what do you think was in the atmosphere and stratosphere, toxic gas...simple has that...produce not by cars or companies for they did not exist then but by active volcanos erupting like crazy to shape where we are all living now. And it still does.

Even in the solar system things changes, always in constant movement, so for sure the earth will "feel" the repercussions of these changes...again normal...

So what better way for governments to use this an avenue to have people spend more money...buy these bags for you can re-use them, buy these cars for they won't produce as much gas emissions...then why won't they stop remote starters sales in the first place is behond me????? People have become sissies....they start their car because they are afraid of sitting in a cold car...boohoo...even for 10 minutes the car just sits there running for nothing...talk about gas emissions!!!!!!

So why? I think people need to wake up and smell the coffee....

My two pence.

LOA

You may want to reassess that belief.

http://www.celticradio.net/php/forums/inde...showtopic=12713

Arctic ice is not receding nearly as fast as NASA reported. They were actually caught in that lie recently. Some models were using winter data for previous years and summer data for later. There was actually a gain in Arctic sea ice this year.

As for using ice core samples to prove that there are concentrations of carbon at certain periods of time in earth's history, you have to look at that from the other angle. Have you ever seen the snow at the side of the road after it begins to melt off? It looks very dirty, doesn't it? If the surface of the ice were to melt, the particles within would not evaporate, but stay on the surface of the ice, appearing to concentrate when it's the loss of ice, not the addition of carbon particles, that has really occurred. Warm temperatures causing a concentration of carbon in an ice cross section, not carbon causing warm temperatures. A causing B, but claiming B caused A. Why, because looking at it from this perspective proves your point.

Bottom line? Carbon does not contribute to Global Warming. 650 of the worlds leading scientists (including those who were part of the IPCC) make this claim, whereas 52 bought ones are saying the opposite.

As I've said from the begining, the BIGGEST hoax since the Cardiff Giant!

DFogshirt;

You can call it a big hoax if you want but whatever the reason there is Global Warming. Just look to the Northweast Passage for the first time in at least 40,000 years it's open. Speaking of the Northwest Passage now that it is open everybody and their brother is screaming it's international waters. It's Canadian inside our Territorial Boundaries. Just like the Panama Canal belongs to Panama and the Suez belongs to Egypt.

Camac.

I agree with all of that Camac. It's putting the blame on us, and not the sun, that is the hoax. Too bad, because if they had concentrated on REAL pollution, we would be making progress and not discrediting the entire Scientific community.

Air pollution kills more people in California than car crashes. 440 in comparably low smog Toronto annually. The Alberta oil sands are leaking 11 million litres of contaminated water from holding ponds PER DAY. This is a fact of life on Earth that we should be concentrating on. Not Carbon Credits. "I can drive my Cayenne, because some guy in Argentina is going to plant a tree for me. He's only getting paid 5c to plant the 30c tree, even though it cost me $xxx.xx, but we're talking about saving polar bears, here." Yeah, ok buddy. It's counter productive to force positive change based on a very thin lie. We are developing emissions technology, at a considerable cost, that will reduce a harmless substance, when truly toxic ones like NOx and Carbon-monoxide are not seeing reductions of any kind. All to stop the sun from heating up.

oldraven;

I really don't give a damn arguing who or what is causing Global Warming. It's a fact and who or what is to blame I will leave to wiser heads than me to figure out. If we humans of the industrial countries are partly or all to blame then it is only smart if we start cleaning up our act and either control or eliminate pollution. You mentioned the oils sands and I read or heard that if something isn't done about the tailing ponds they could be responsible for upward of 1 1/2 Billion birds dying. The technology is out there to eliminate a great percentage of co2 and carbon mo but either the political or finacial will isn't there to use it. Maybe this economic crisis and its affects on the auto industry will make the Detroit 3 get their butts in gear and produce cleaner more efficient cars. When will we learn you can't mess with Mother Nature, she always wins in the end.


Camac.

Actually, most developed nations are moving ahead with CO2 reductions, and forcing consumers to pay the extra, or they get taxed anyway. Pay more taxes, or pay more taxes. The EU are at the forefront. The AGW debate has absolutely nothing to do with pollution, man.

I would be more inclined to give the 52 scientists the benefit of the doubt, if they hadn't shut the door on any kind of opposing evidence. Those 400 scientists were BANNED from the Bali talks, man. This is going to end up being a term with 'gate' tacked onto the end.