Greenhouse emmisions.........are we doomed by 2050
- Thread starter Skepperz
- Start date
- Status
I'm absolutley sick of people still trying to deny man made global warming. still clinging to bits of misinformation left over from the denial industry that came from Exxon Mobil,and a large US tobbaco company,and the US government.
The scientific conseous is as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer and HIV causes AIDS.
We have till 2030 to sort things out and stop a +2C temperture increase. yet we still have many people laughing it off and brining up debunk misinformation to support there denial.
It's a disgrace. We have wasted the best part of ten years because of the denial industry and its tricks,now they have been exposed and the information we have to start acting.
The thing that alot of people dont realise is its for everyones sake that we act and curb emmisions. the global economy included. there will be massive economic problems if we go into runaway climate change,these massive problems are well documented now.
we have the chance to stop it. cleaner technologys will boost economys. no-one is saying we turn off the heating and put our animal skins back on. but we have to move forward. when will certain people start listening,and get there heads of the sand.
And anyone who laughs at the most probable exinction of the Polar Bear,because of its habitat melting away through global warming should be ashamed of themselves. Really really ashamed.
The scientific conseous is as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer and HIV causes AIDS.
We have till 2030 to sort things out and stop a +2C temperture increase. yet we still have many people laughing it off and brining up debunk misinformation to support there denial.
It's a disgrace. We have wasted the best part of ten years because of the denial industry and its tricks,now they have been exposed and the information we have to start acting.
The thing that alot of people dont realise is its for everyones sake that we act and curb emmisions. the global economy included. there will be massive economic problems if we go into runaway climate change,these massive problems are well documented now.
we have the chance to stop it. cleaner technologys will boost economys. no-one is saying we turn off the heating and put our animal skins back on. but we have to move forward. when will certain people start listening,and get there heads of the sand.
And anyone who laughs at the most probable exinction of the Polar Bear,because of its habitat melting away through global warming should be ashamed of themselves. Really really ashamed.
Rekonn
Premium Member
Science is made stronger by constant questioning, it's a good thing. Don't feel offended, just offer evidence pointing to the contrary if you have it. It does no good to call people that don't come to the same conclusion that you do "deniers". That's just name calling, and doesn't help convince anyone.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
It doesn't kill birds, it makes their egg shells thin and fragile. It also bioaccumulates all the way up the food chain, not good. Back on topic.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
I can't say I know anything about what the scientific literature says on DDT and birds, but I'd love to hear why you think it's a myth.
As for polar bears, from what I know (which isn't a lot) there's not enough global population data to tell whether numbers are increasing or decreasing. There are better records for some local populations and some seem to be decreasing. AFAIK none appear to be increasing. If sea ice continues to shrink and thin though, there's not much question they'll be in bad shape in the future. In any event, the fate of polar bears isn't evidence for or against anthropogenic warming.
As for polar bears, from what I know (which isn't a lot) there's not enough global population data to tell whether numbers are increasing or decreasing. There are better records for some local populations and some seem to be decreasing. AFAIK none appear to be increasing. If sea ice continues to shrink and thin though, there's not much question they'll be in bad shape in the future. In any event, the fate of polar bears isn't evidence for or against anthropogenic warming.
Like most things in science, there are published experiments on both sides of the DDT vs. bird issue. From my own observations living in one of the heavily studied areas in regards to DDT in the environment, I've seen tremendous increase in Osprey (the heaviest hit) populations and several other raptors since DDT was banned. There have been no environmental changes that would support such increases that could be used to support other theories. In fact quite the opposite, reduced open spaces, shore line hardening, reduced fish populations, increased devolpment...
The time for questioning is over. 99% of scientists around the world are in agreement. Its only a select few that dont. We need to act now,time is running out.
I'm afraid some people no matter what evidence they are shown,will still never be convinced. they dont want to be. This is my point.
The denial game is or WAS an industry. This is why I mention it. Millions of U.S dollars were spent over the years trying to cover man made global warming up.
Buckeye ME
In Memoriam
1000 years ago, 99% of scientists were convinced the world is flat.
Do you have a statistic to prove "99% of scientists"? If not, you are reverting to hyperbole. Not that it would surprise me.
Do you have a statistic to prove "99% of scientists"? If not, you are reverting to hyperbole. Not that it would surprise me.
My understanding is that there are about 19 different polar bear populations. One of which is in decline, due to hunting.
Putting an animal on the endangered species list because of what might happen in the future, seems silly to me. If you look at the rate of species extinctions, you could say the same for every animal including man.
Last edited:
To doubt,today,that manmade climate change is happening,you must abandon science and revert to some other means of understanding the world:alchemy perhaps,or magic.
Ice cores extraced from the Antartcic show that the levels of co2 and methane in the atmosphere (these are the two principal greenhouse gases) are now higher than they have been for 650,000 years. Throughout that period,the concentration of these gases has been closely tracked by global temperatures.
Co2 levels have been rising over the past century faster that at any other time over the past 20,000 years. The only means by which greenhouse gases could have accumulated so swiftly is human action:carbon dioxide is produced by burning oil,coal,gas,and by clearing forests,while methane is released from farms and coal mines and landfill sites.
Both gases let in heat from the sun more readily than they let it out. As their levels in the atmosphere increase,the temperature rises. The concentration of co2,the important of the two,has risen from 280ppm in Marlowes time to 380ppm today. Most of the growth has taken place in the past fifty years. The average global temp over the past century has climbed,as a result,by 0.6C. According to the World Metorological organization, "the increase in temperature in the 21st century is likely to have been the largest in any century during the past 1000 years".
If you reject this explanation for planetary warming,you should ask yourself the following questions:
1. Does the atmosphere contain co2?
2. Does atmospheric co2 raise the average global temperature?
3. Will this influence be enhanced by the addition of more co2?
4. Have human activities led to a net emmision of co2?
If you are able to answer "no" to any of them,you should put yourself forward for a Nobel Prize. You will have turned science on its head.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11519070#post11519070 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rossini
so we just have to take samthemans word for it do we? brilliant
I would hope not. Not thinking for yourself is what keeps the environmental movement alive. Running around picking up bottles while the earth dies, makes many feel better.
Try doing some research on polar bears and not from the New York Times. You will be suprised.
Number two is based on a correlation between untestable models and unproven base temperatures. How does a correlation, however aquired, prove causation?
Now lets here how the models are tested, how high a confidence factor is used, how the temperature estimates are accurate, and then that last big jump,,,,,,,causation. This is not science.
- Status
