Is it hype? I'm sure there have been discussions on this before but i wasnt here and I want you all to weigh in.
I tmyself think its hype, I think hat our climate is changing and I think we have at least partially caused it, but either way its something that happens over time there has been proof of this. The climate changes period.(We as Rational and Logical thinkers can't pick and choose what we see from the natural world we have to take ALL the evidence. Because if we pick'n'choose we might as well get our evidence from the bible God did it the, bible said it, done. Well god also said not to eat shellfish...lol)
Anyway i dont know if any of you know about potholer54(the universe made easy is a great couple of youtube videos) well potholer has a couple of vids on global warming. Heres a link to the first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Now I want this to be civilized discussion I understand its a hurtful hard topic but I've seen alot of mini fights break out on these forums. We athiests almost by definition, are very very passionate, still we are (mostly) educated.

So let it happen, give me cases for and ageist global warming.

For my full stance, here it is.
I dont believe in waste, I dont use pastic bags, I bike ride everywhere i dont have a car. Although that might have to change after a promotion :(
But I'm kinda up in the air about global warming. I think yes its happening but is it something we caused idk and idc. I think we should do all we can, to keep the one and only world we have nice. Thats just me.

Fun fact I read somewhere...
The toyota prius, cost so much to make it takes ten years of driving it to offset that cost(to the enviroment) this could of changed cause its been a while since ive read it.
And i do love that car dont get me wrong just thought I should shake it up.

Tags: global, warming, zomg

Views: 13

Replies to This Discussion

Which jury is still out?

Certainly not the overwhelming majority of the worlds best climate scientist plus all the premier science institutes used by governments to check scientific claims when it concerns matters of vital national importance. Oh I forgot even the governments themselves have seen the writing on the wall as far as AGW, even the troglodyte Bush knew this.

Yes there are other environmental problems but when you comprehend the impacts of AGW you start to realise the game is up in many ways that will overwhelm everything else. From the hundreds of millions that will come under extreme waters stress and droughts to the hundreds of millions of climate refugees from sea level rise and other climatic effects, to extreme wildfires and the increase in disease ranges, the impacts will be immense. & that is if we can limit it to a two degrees increase more than that and you can kiss goodbye to the world as we know it. An increase of 5-10 degrees is in the range of past world mass extinctions of most all life on Earth.

Lets not forget about animal and plant extinctions on a planet where humans make migration very hard and they don’t have the timescales available to adapt like in past natural climate shifts.

I’ve no doubt there is much politics , but it isn’t about the science, its about trying to appear to do something while actually doing the least amount possible, so they don’t have to tell their constituents things that they don’t want to hear. Namely they have to radically change their lifestyles, or that ethically they should put their hands in their pockets and pay the developing world for making most of the mess -and enjoying the fruits– in the first place.

& concerning the environment in general we just don't have Climate Change, but you have Peak oil and Peak Resource -Club of Rome– on the horizon as well.
For pro-warming content, here's greenman3610: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

I'm agnostic, myself, about "global warming". I've found that the weather over the course of my life has gotten shittier, even after controlling for having been in Pennsylvania for three years, but that's not enough to prove it from my experiences. If I'm exposed to shitloads of data collected by people all over the world, I'll trust it, 'cause even with a conspiracy of mad proportions, it's not humanly possible to get such insane craploads of false data from actual people or to falsify it afterwards. What I have been exposed to is, on one side, heavy, heavy, heavy pushing that this "global warming" badass motherfucker that's gonna fuck up the planet real bad, bitch, is real and a threat, and, on the other, is heavy pushing that it's all a bunch of bullshit. Neither side has truly convinced me. Currently, my feeling is that the "Yes, it's warming" side has at least put on a good puppet show--right or wrong, and that the "Fuck you, you're drunk and imagining things" side has put on a shitty dog show full of hamsters.

In actions, I side with the warmists, 'cause what they promote as "solutions to the problem" are good with or without a problem: greater efficiency and so forth.
Sydni, a theory in science is supported by all evidence, and has been tested and found true over time. You're using theory in the general meaning, not the scientific meaning (where the word you're looking for would be hypothesis).
All good points thank you btw Sydni the video was great.
I have to say i expected alot more anger in these replys.
But dont get me wrong im happy there isn't lol
Have a careful inspection of this pic ...

The data for C02 ppm has been recorded by hundreds of people in hundreds of locations with planes and whether balloons, from ice cores, in coral, and even from growth rings in old trees. The data in the graph is widely accepted in scientific circles as accurate and alarming. You would have to see the papers yourself for sources. Try Google with the words "co2 levels"
Oh but did you know that ice it takes 800 years for the increase of the CO2 to cause an affect like the ice age and the like.
Granted its much higher now then its ever been.
Just watch the video i linked you
then when you have time watch the made easy vids. they have nothing to do with gobal warming more with physics and bio chemisty. Origins of life/the universe
anyway im off track.
The problem is that for AGW to be wrong, would mean that everything we understand about physics would be wrong as well. A lot of people fail to understand this, but AGW follows pretty straight-forward from what we know about physics.

I'd suggest reading sites like RealClimate.org for the science behind our understanding of AGW, rather than watching YouTube videos. Over at RealClimate.org, the scientists involved in the research goes at great length to explain the science, and address common misunderstandings and even outright lies.

Much like the evolution "debate", there is no real scientific debate on the subject of AGW. The debate is entirely among politicians and the public. See e.g. the IPCC synthesis report ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf ), which is a summary of the current scientific knowledge on the subject, for a better understanding of this.
Who to believe? Scientist divided? Evidence uncertain? Other pressing problems?
How about some new (leading) questions:
When did an awareness of trouble first appear (time line)?
Who spoke up at this point?
Who supported them?
When did the opposition first appear?
Who spoke up at this point?
Who supported them?
What do the respective parties or their supporters have at stake?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service