BF2S Forums Professor sheds light for climate change sceptics

Maybe we could just move all global warming skeptics to coastal areas.  If they don't see the current trends as a problem, they shouldn't have any problem with living in areas most likely to be affected by global warming.

Turquoise wrote:

Maybe we could just move all global warming skeptics to coastal areas.  If they don't see the current trends as a problem, they shouldn't have any problem with living in areas most likely to be affected by global warming.

"Do you want us to give you beach-side property now, or what will be beach-side property in ten years?"

jesus created dinosaurs evolution jews global warming to test our faith.

@ Catbox. Although the earth does clean itself as you said, we are messing it up at a rate that it cant compensate for.
You are also spot on regarding pollution though.

Its a shame that Al Gore may have done his cause harm just for being a Democrat ( and a doosh). Still He has probably done more good than harm ( even if he is a hypocrit).

Scary thing is that the first wave of Climate change refugees has already begun

wiki wrote:

In 2005, half of Bhola Island in Bangladesh became permanently flooded, leaving 500,000 people homeless. The Bhola Islanders have been described as some of the world's first climate refugees[7]. In 2007, a Bangladeshi scientist stated: "We're already seeing hundreds of thousands of climate refugees moving into slums in Dhaka."[8] These refugees were fleeing flooded coastal areas.

The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea are also among the first climate refugees due to sea level rise attributed to global warming and climate change[9] [10]. Other inhabitants of low lying islands and Island states, are also at risk. Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Maldives are especially susceptible to changes in sea level and storm surges[11] [12] [13].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_refugee

Dilbert_X wrote:

Catbox wrote:

we are probably not hurting the earth much at all...it cleans itself

The problem is removing humans may well be the first step in the cleaning process, which could take millions of years to equilibrate.

I'm convinced of global warming being a man-made problem.

Even if you're only 50:50 why take the risk?

Enhanced global warming is a man-influenced issue

Global warming (the most coined phrase) is the natural version.

Man does have an effect on the earth, but the world isn't going to melt in like ten years time.

The small effect we have on the climate doesn't warrant at least 2 threads a day I have to scroll past and the 3 news reports a week that I have to find the remote and change channel for.

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

Every time global warming is mentioned sceptics come up with the same arguments against it. This professor has pretty much nailed those arguments too. Where will the sceptics go now?

http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html . The newest topics will be at the bottom. The professor better get busy.

meh..... mass hysteria for nothing.

I would welcome some global warming, but some say an iceage is comming:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 83,00.html
so even the scientists aren't in agreement.

here's a graph over the past temperature:


I have no idea what will happen.

In the end ( speaking in a very long time ) theres nothing we can do other than accept islands/coasts come and go we need to be flexible and adapt for changes that certainly will come man made or not.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, global warming/climate change is caused by man, does anyone honestly think the human race has the power to reverse it?

Edit: If you believe we do have the power to reverse climate change, how would we go about accomplishing the reversal?

Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-12-07 16:49:53)

Stingray24 wrote:

Assuming, for the sake of argument, global warming/climate change is caused by man, does anyone honestly think the human race has the power to reverse it?

We could possibly reverse it quicker than the earth would do so on its own, but that depends solely on the effect that climate change would have on the earth and to what extent humanity remains (we will survive whatever happens, its just the amount of us and the resources/landscape left that determines what sort of society we could have i.e. a smallish (1 billion people or under I would say) population would probably not have the same level of technological/scientific abilities as we currently do whilst larger populations would.). If the very very worst happens and most of us are killed then after a generation or two then yes we probably could start to change it back, slowly and over thousands of years probably.

Though the chances of climate changes results being that extreme are probably incredibly unlikely, at most i would personally think it would eradicate maybe 2 billion people.(thats through major flooding/loss of land from other things like temperature changes (cold here, what about elsewhere) and the several wars that would undoubtably happen over the remaining land and resources.

To be quite honest whatever we do to this planet short of moving its orbit (no idea how or why) or physically blowing it apart would only affect it for a very short period of its lifespan and it would be back to normal service soon enough. Its only us and other lifeforms we're harming, though we would adapt and evolve as would any surviving species.