BF2S Forums Global Warming: The ice melt-down

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The philosophy of replanting should be spread.

People think this is a myth or Al Gore's paranoia.

sergeriver wrote:

Kilimanjaro has already lost 82 percent of its ice cover over 80 years.

So you are saying that humans hare causing this?  UHM NO. its false.  human impact is so minimal, but al gore and all those fucking leftists are making a huge deal about it.  ever 100,000 years theres been an ice age.  every 10,000 years theres been a small global weather change, which is warming then drastic cooling.  its been happening for millions of years, and there really isnt anythingw e can do to stop it.  the suns output if energy is NOT stable, the amount variest in cycles.  this is the main reason for 'global warming' and the current wacky weather that you may have noticed.  humans cant do anything to prevent it, but we can take measures to be prepared when it all goes downhill.  im not gonna quote my sources, but u can find em if u want, i wrote a paper on this for school last year.

LOLZ stupid fucking leftists and their not wanting to destroy the planet.

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

LOLZ stupid fucking leftists and their not wanting to destroy the planet.

Yeah! If it wasn't for liberals we would be able to screw up the environment to the point where earth becomes a waste land and we would still not care. You liberals are so stupid for worrying about the possible irreversible catastrophe that could soon happen.

Ok, you are damn right.  Sorry guys for being such a dick with all this environment shit.  Let's throw some nuclear waste to the lake.

I would agree with you, except for the fact that I can't see pollution killing off all the retards conservatives people who don't believe we are doing damage to the environment, and keeping me alive. You see, I'd like to stay alive, at least, for a little bit longer. However, once I'm 35 or so, feel free to blow it up.

ghettoperson wrote:

I would agree with you, except for the fact that I can't see pollution killing off all the retards conservatives people who don't believe we are doing damage to the environment, and keeping me alive. You see, I'd like to stay alive, at least, for a little bit longer. However, once I'm 35 or so, feel free to blow it up.

LOL...  I like your sense of humor.  I agree that destroying the planet will obviously harm all of us and not just those of us that are blissfully ignorant (which includes far more than just some conservatives).  I guess what I probably should have said is that I believe humans oftentimes only learn things the hard way.  When we start to see more stark repercussions of negligent pollution, then perhaps, more people will be inclined to try and slow the effects of global warming.

I can guarantee that more people will take Gore seriously when the sea level begins to rise substantially and flood low-lying cities.  It might take the thawing of Greenland before people really wake up to this issue.

Not saying we should pollute like crazy and deforest the hole planet just for fun but i hardly believe the inhabitants of this planet is the drop that makes the cup flow over, the planet itself pollutes in the area of 95-98 % of the total pollution.

However deforestation and carbon dioxide creates other more lethal threats than the supposedly global warming like famine and the creation of possible medical breakthroughs.

Could go on for hours about this but as always google is your best friend when it comes to finding facts about this ....... facts ? .... who can really tell what the facts are in this case since nothing is clearly documented for neither theory !

Stingray24 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Ok, you are damn right.  Sorry guys for being such a dick with all this environment shit.  Let's throw some nuclear waste to the lake.

No one is suggesting that. Because we disagree with you we want nuclear waste dumped in water sources? Come on. 

I have always supported environmental policies that are based in reality and not hype.  Conservation of our resources is fine, hype by environmentalists that is not based on solid science is not.  I don't believe there's a shred of true science involved in environmentalist movement.  It's more political than anything.  They won't get donations to their groups if they don't scare people to death. 

We should have responsible policies in regard to our environment and leave the rest to nature.  There are things that humans simply cannot prevent.  Can . . . not . . . prevent.  Temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of earth's existence, and that was before the industrial age and our modern techonological age.  Earth's temperature fluctuated, always has, always will.  We are not that powerful that we can change the earth in a way that is dangerous to our survival.  Environmentalists have howled about the impending destruction of earth for years and we're still here.  Humans are not causing any significant change. 

Read this article, addresses the hysteria environmentalist have always promoted, and shows how it's become a religion, a value system for some people.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech … ote05.html

Crichton is just as much a "propagandist" as Al Gore.  It's two sides of the same coin.  On the one hand, Gore does in fact use solid science to back a lot of his claims up.  On the other hand, Crichton points out that hysteria is not the way to react to our environmental issues.  Yet, they both have their drawbacks....  Gore tends to overestimate damage while Crichton underestimates it.  The truth lies somewhere in between.

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

No one is suggesting that. Because we disagree with you we want nuclear waste dumped in water sources? Come on. 

I have always supported environmental policies that are based in reality and not hype.  Conservation of our resources is fine, hype by environmentalists that is not based on solid science is not.  I don't believe there's a shred of true science involved in environmentalist movement.  It's more political than anything.  They won't get donations to their groups if they don't scare people to death. 

We should have responsible policies in regard to our environment and leave the rest to nature.  There are things that humans simply cannot prevent.  Can . . . not . . . prevent.  Temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of earth's existence, and that was before the industrial age and our modern techonological age.  Earth's temperature fluctuated, always has, always will.  We are not that powerful that we can change the earth in a way that is dangerous to our survival.  Environmentalists have howled about the impending destruction of earth for years and we're still here.  Humans are not causing any significant change. 

Read this article, addresses the hysteria environmentalist have always promoted, and shows how it's become a religion, a value system for some people.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech … ote05.html

Crichton is just as much a "propagandist" as Al Gore.  It's two sides of the same coin.  On the one hand, Gore does in fact use solid science to back a lot of his claims up.  On the other hand, Crichton points out that hysteria is not the way to react to our environmental issues.  Yet, they both have their drawbacks....  Gore tends to overestimate damage while Crichton underestimates it.  The truth lies somewhere in between.

If you read more of Crichton, you'll find that he supports environmental responsibility and policies that  protect our natural resources.  He (and I) just take issue with a mindset that says the sky is falling because we use fossil fuels and emit CO2.

I'm a bit different from your typical environmentalist.  I'm not one of those Greenpeace types that chains myself to a tree or tries to hijack a tanker full of plutonium.

I believe in practical solutions to pollution issues, some of which coincide with Crichton's ideas.  It's just that I often find Crichton a bit optimistic in his assumptions.  Whereas Gore is a bit pessimistic.  The main problem the environmental movement faces currently is how many oil companies have chosen to fund studies on global warming in recent years.  There is a definite agenda being promoted by the American Petroleum Institute against the concept of global warming, and unfortunately, Bush's administration has gleefully accepted it.

It's much easier to dismiss global warming as hogwash than to consider changing our lifestyles to better the future.  I believe that a good amount of global warming is indeed cyclical and beyond our power to change, but there is still a good portion (probably at least an equal amount) that is malleable to our behaviors.  We probably cannot reverse the damage that has been done, but surely we can slow the rate at which it occurs.

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

No one is suggesting that. Because we disagree with you we want nuclear waste dumped in water sources? Come on. 

I have always supported environmental policies that are based in reality and not hype.  Conservation of our resources is fine, hype by environmentalists that is not based on solid science is not.  I don't believe there's a shred of true science involved in environmentalist movement.  It's more political than anything.  They won't get donations to their groups if they don't scare people to death. 

We should have responsible policies in regard to our environment and leave the rest to nature.  There are things that humans simply cannot prevent.  Can . . . not . . . prevent.  Temperatures have fluctuated since the beginning of earth's existence, and that was before the industrial age and our modern techonological age.  Earth's temperature fluctuated, always has, always will.  We are not that powerful that we can change the earth in a way that is dangerous to our survival.  Environmentalists have howled about the impending destruction of earth for years and we're still here.  Humans are not causing any significant change. 

Read this article, addresses the hysteria environmentalist have always promoted, and shows how it's become a religion, a value system for some people.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech … ote05.html

Crichton is just as much a "propagandist" as Al Gore.  It's two sides of the same coin.  On the one hand, Gore does in fact use solid science to back a lot of his claims up.  On the other hand, Crichton points out that hysteria is not the way to react to our environmental issues.  Yet, they both have their drawbacks....  Gore tends to overestimate damage while Crichton underestimates it.  The truth lies somewhere in between.

If you read more of Crichton, you'll find that he supports environmental responsibility and policies that  protect our natural resources.  He (and I) just take issue with a mindset that says the sky is falling because we use fossil fuels and emit CO2.

Crichton is full of shit. Gore is a idiot (*edit* actually, not an idiot - but I still don't like him) who over sensationalises the issues.

Get your evidence from scientific sources not from 3rd parties, that includes the media. If you want unbiased sensible answers read scientific journals.

Did you know that there hasn't been a single article published in any reputable scientific journals for the past 5 years that does not consider global warming to be a serious issue?
Those who claim global warming is media hype are clearly idiots, since it is in fact the opposite way round. The bulk of papers claiming global warming is not an issue have been printed in the media, not in scientific journals, why? Because global warming IS an issue.

Have you ever heard of the joint academies of sciences? NASA? They all seem to think global warming is a threat. So do all the scientists in the field in places like Antarctica who are researching this stuff. They know a damn sight more about it than a fucking author.

Ice caps are melting. Last year 6% of the Arctic melted. In about 50 years there won't be an Arctic. This will increase the rate at which sea temperatures rise, due to less reflected light and more absorbtion.

The sky is not falling, nothing is going to change overnight. But in 50 years when half the worlds population are without drinking water and global politics becomes totally fucked, things will not be at all good.

If you can find me a credible scientific body (not a single individual) that deny global warming is an issue, I'll give you a biscuit.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-10-15 14:40:34)

Stingray24 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

How about climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science?  That's a credible scientific body.  Largest general scientific society in fact.  They back up my assertion that global warming, if it is occuring, is caused more by the Sun, than by humans.  There goes the "we're destroying the earth" bs.  The Sun's cycle will take it's usual change and the Arctic will gain back it's ice cap mass.  It's happened before, it'll happen again.  I'll take a pizza instead of the biscuit.

8 Years old. Theory has been discredited. The American Association for the Advancement of Science have more recently withdrawn that claim, they have also published contradictory papers. Like the one mentioned in  this article.

The official stance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is that global warming is caused by human activity.

Nearly though...

(btw - a pizza and a biscuit are clearly not interchangable - that's like winning $10 and asking for $100)

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

Yeah, and scientists also want us to piss our pants over rogue asteroids, sunspots, and the avian flu.  As long as you give them grant money scientists will call anything you want a threat to humanity.

There's the deadly global warming. . .the super massive earthquake scheduled to drop Cali into the drink. . .there's the ticking time bomb of a volcano under Yellowstone that will obliterate half of the country, and the list goes on.  Hell, scientists are WAY better at scaring people with their doomsday predictions than the Republicans are with their terrorist talk.

I mean shit. . .in 8th freaking grade I learned about how humans have only been around for about .000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the Earth's history and how the Earth goes through insane global changes every so often.  Yet now the scientists (since they've got the guy that invented the Internet backing them) want to say that what we've done in a mere 100 years or so is going to kill all of us and wreck a planet that's been around for MILLIONS of years?  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  I'm more worried about those kooks ripping a hole in the space-time continuum with their particle accelerator and letting head crabs kill us all.....

For a start your figures are very wrong. The universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old (they know, but I've forgotten which it is, 12 or 14). The Earth is much less old than that. If humans had only been around for 1 year, and taking the universe to be 10 billion years old that's more like 0.000000001% of the history of the universe.

The planet will be fine. Most people will be ok. It's the ones living in countries that will be flooded and those that will suffer from drought, like much of Asia and Africa, the two biggest, most populated continents, that will suffer.