U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-11-2008, 04:34 PM
 
Location: Home is where the heart is
15,400 posts, read 25,253,389 times
Reputation: 18984

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammie View Post
There are just so many people who are making fortunes because of this "new discovery".

But isn't it wonderful that it's making us more conscious of how we treat our earth?
LOL, two great points. And money is being made off global warming in the strangest ways. I know of a nursery that's selling banana trees to Virginians. They claim you can plant them in VA now because Meadowlark Gardens planted one on a lark and it's survived two mild winters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2008, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,372 posts, read 2,488,093 times
Reputation: 573
Global warming is no longer a debate technically, as all credible scientists now agree it's not only happening, but is probably our fault.

Anyway, I guess the debate now is what we should do about it.

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy. I think we should discontinue some of our highways and replace with with bullet trains. Light rails should serve all cities and their suburbs.

Plastic should be used less. There should be a law that you have to replant any forest you cut down, and more of the forests in America should be protected. Farms should be converted into forest and tree farms, and we should work on building hydroponic farm skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 01:18 AM
 
2,765 posts, read 6,372,986 times
Reputation: 1441
It's the biggest media scare tactic since Y2K, and perhaps the biggest con of our lifetime. Protecting the environment is a great thing, we are lucky to live on this precious earth and we should take care of it and not destroy it, but in my opinion global warming is a con and I'm sticking to that opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,169,537 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by j760 View Post
It's the biggest media scare tactic since Y2K, and perhaps the biggest con of our lifetime. Protecting the environment is a great thing, we are lucky to live on this precious earth and we should take care of it and not destroy it, but in my opinion global warming is a con and I'm sticking to that opinion.
I'd like to know what data you base your opinion on? Why are you against the scientific consensus?

Quote:
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[46]
I find it strange that people will trust plumbers, mechanics, dentists, doctors, firemen, et cetera to do their jobs but they have a hard time trusting scientists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 09:16 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,933,320 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by j760 View Post
It's the biggest media scare tactic since Y2K, and perhaps the biggest con of our lifetime. Protecting the environment is a great thing, we are lucky to live on this precious earth and we should take care of it and not destroy it, but in my opinion global warming is a con and I'm sticking to that opinion.
The Y2K issue was NOT a phony issue. I'm a software developer and spent many, many months modifying software so that problems did NOT occur. Folks like myself are the only reason we didn't have problems. If left alone the problems would have happened - and they would have been massive. Proactive planning prevented that, but had we not taken action it would have been very much a problem.

The same may indeed be true of Global Warming. If sit and do nothing, problems - possibly massive ones - may indeed occur.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 11:12 AM
 
6,760 posts, read 10,183,620 times
Reputation: 2992
Things like the coming 20-30 year cooling trend are what makes me even more skeptical than before.

Did all the "consensus" scientist not see this coming for the last 10-20 years? If so, why did they not tell us about well in advance so that we could see how well they know how the climate works? If not, then it is just another sign that the planetary systems are indeed far more complex than they would like to admit, and that our actions have less of an impact than we have been scared into believing.

What massive problems are going to occur? Less people freezing to death? Longer growing seasons? The ability to grow crops at higher and higher latitudes that will enable us to feed the growing population?

As I've said before, I think our time and resources would be much better spent fighting air pollution (the real stuff, not CO2), water pollution, and planning better for desalinization and transport of clean drinking water.

The fact is we already have sufficient laws on the books to fight air and water pollution. However, the laws do not benefit the greedy doom and gloom crowd like Al Gore, so they need new laws that they can profit from along with their friends.

If they really cared about the environment at all, they would downsize their lifestyles, and push hard for EPA laws on air and water pollution to be enforced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 12:47 PM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,187,061 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by j760 View Post
in my opinion global warming is a con and I'm sticking to that opinion.
I'm not sure I understand you.

Are you saying that no amount of data is going to convince you otherwise?

Can you describe what might convince you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 14,702,964 times
Reputation: 1347
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, there is a list of credible scientists who disaggree with the current global warming opinions.

Second: If you look at the beautiful graphics that were in the second post you see that the majority of the population is near the coast in Africa, if the waters rise what happens, the people move inland, water gets to the deserts and they are then fertal.

Third: Where does fosil fuel come from, fosils. Well as we know the areas of Canada, Alaska and Greenland where alot of our oil is coming from is inhospitable but must have once been at the least temperate to have animals and plant life there so who are we to say that the temperature now is the 'Ideal' temperature for our planet?

Fourth: Polar bears live in the water, they are excelent swimmers and will not drown, that was just down right propaganda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2008, 02:08 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
18,946 posts, read 21,933,320 times
Reputation: 6537
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
Second: If you look at the beautiful graphics that were in the second post you see that the majority of the population is near the coast in Africa, if the waters rise what happens, the people move inland, water gets to the deserts and they are then fertal.
Saltwater does not make ANYPLACE fertile. There are plenty of coastal areas that are barren (North Africa, the west coast of South America, large coastal areas of Australia, etc, etc, etc)


Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
Third: Where does fosil fuel come from, fosils. Well as we know the areas of Canada, Alaska and Greenland where alot of our oil is coming from is inhospitable but must have once been at the least temperate to have animals and plant life there so who are we to say that the temperature now is the 'Ideal' temperature for our planet?.
Well, not technically true that fossil fuels come from fossils - they are two very different things with a common source, but I get what you are saying - and yes indeed the earth's climate has been very different in the past than it is now - and so has the atmosphere (which sometimes had VERY different levels of Oxygen, CO2 etc - in some cases the atmosphere would have been deadly (or nearly so) to humans). Still, the fact remains that I get your point - ie that a warmer earth is not necessarily entirely a bad thing - assuming that it doesn't result in a "runaway" condition. Keep in mind that atmospheric makeup makes a HUGE difference in the temperature of any planet - Venus for example being hotter than Mercury even though it's twice the distance from the sun. With that in mind the truth is there is NO ideal climate, nor any true climatic stability. The desert belt that encircles the earth a bit south of the US border would NOT be welcome in the grain belt however and any rise in sea level (if one were to occur) would be bound to bring with it a LOT of costs - especially if it is substantial.

Regarding polar bears (not quite sure where that came from) - yes they CAN swim but they don't LIVE in the water and need to come out to sleep, feed, breed etc.

Ken

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2008, 01:02 AM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,324,961 times
Reputation: 889
The myth of consensus:
DailyTech - Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

The myth of shrinking glaciers:
Growing Glaciers

The myth of continuing rising temperatures:
DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

The myth of rising sea levels:
Atlantic Ocean falling

Then there is this little nugget from 1989, warning us that we have 10 years to solve Global Warming or risk seeing nations washed off the earth, from .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. :

According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

I favor freedom of religion so I have no problem with people believing Global Warming. But it takes as much faith to believe as any other religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top