DeletedUser
Guest
The Sun heats the Earth, not man.
- Status
DeletedUser
Guest
That's nice, so you obtained your degree from where?
I'm only asking because, you know, over 97% of scientists in the relevant fields say you're simply wrong. So, I can only assume you obtained your degree from some otherworldly university that pwns this planet's universities.
lol...
lol...
roflmao...
Anyway, umm rjc, do you know what a greenhouse effect is?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
You can't trust the environmentalist or the cooperations on this subject, they both have a common goal in mind money. The environmentalist want to scare you into spending money on their eco-friendly products, and the cooperations want things to continue as they have before, so that they can make their huge profits just a little longer.
We're defiantly having an effect on the climate, but i do not believe its as severe as the environmentalists claim. Its clear we do need to take the next step in social responsibility, and we do need to take better care of the earth, but do not worry folks, the predictions being made are mainly premature. There's still time left to correct our path
We're defiantly having an effect on the climate, but i do not believe its as severe as the environmentalists claim. Its clear we do need to take the next step in social responsibility, and we do need to take better care of the earth, but do not worry folks, the predictions being made are mainly premature. There's still time left to correct our path
DeletedUser
Guest
Earths orbit is currently revolving closer to the sun. That is why the Earth is heating up. That is also why the Earth has cooled down and heated up naturally over centuries.
DeletedUser
Guest
Okay, well you're incorrect. The Earth is closest to the Sun in January (every year), furthest from the Sun in July (again, every year). The distances are 91 million miles to 95 million miles (a variation of only 3%). For your assertion to be correct, we would have hotter Januaries and colder Julies. Such is not the case.
Your assertions are based on a distorted (misinformed, in your case) presumption on the Milankovitch theory. <click here> The Milankovitch theory is not relevant, at least not in terms of our more recent climate changes. The difference in climate change has been dramatic over just 100+ years, as opposed to the Milankovitch theory, which relates a slow, gradual shifting of the perihelion/aphelion (Earth's distances during rotation around the Sun) that shifts upper and lower hemispherical significance. This shifting requires hundreds of thousands of years, the next is predicted not to result until 50,000 to 100,000 years. And, in any event, it isn't suspected to have changed (raised or lowered) "global" temperature in past events, just shifted upper and lower hemispherical averages.
So no, the Earth is not revolving closer to the Sun, no closer now than it did at approximately the same time 100 years ago. If anything, it is further from (albeit insignificant).
Next wild guess?
DeletedUser
Guest
And they're all trying to set up a New World Order too. I've done research on this gaiz. The end is neer.
DeletedUser
Guest
Agreed, those corporations are scaring us into buying and living green. Climategate is real, green cars, green building materials, green regulations, green food, green... green... green money! I bet those climategate scientists had some stock in green products.
DeletedUser
Guest
Umm, super fast, it's "corporations," not "cooperations."
Anyway, scientists are --- scientists. Whatever political/corporate agendas may be out there, scientific research is geared to provide answers. You can run around all day long going, "don't trust this guy, don't trust that guy," but it's a distraction. If you want to start claiming trust or distrust of one or another, you're falling victim to the politics. Review the evidence, which is substantial. The facts stand in front of you, ample evidence clearly indicating there is not merely a problem with Climate Change (and depleting petroleum), but one we must act on if we are to stay ahead of the game and avoid further irreversible damage. In fact, this thread has gone on long enough, I think I'll step up and pose some previous posts on this very issue we discussed in this very forum a year or so ago.
There's always time left to decrease the damage, but not undo the damage, or remove the damage altogether. There's plenty more hardship to come, and it's precisely BECAUSE of this "more time left" attitude that nothing's been done yet. The vast majority of experts clearly indicate it is too late to reverse things. We're presently left with just trying to reduce the severity. That's not a win, it's a reduction of loss.
Do you even know what Climategate was? Do you even realize just how much propaganda you're being fed and how grossly ignorant it is to assume that it's corporations who are trying to scare you into going green? Just the opposite my friend, just the opposite.
Anyway, time to get serious about this discussion... because the silly just hit the fan and I can't take it anymore. Let's get the description correct. It is referred to as "climate change." The effects, as we are presently experiencing, are hotter summers, colder winters, with a slight increase in global temperature. What people repeatedly fail to realize is that when it's hot in the northern hemisphere, it's cold in the southern hemisphere. Thus, when they watch the weather channel and go, "hah, it's cold here in January, blah blah this fake global warming stuff," they are demonstrating a myopic perception of the issue. Not only from viewing a global event at a regional level, but a time-relevant event on an incidental level. The slight global temperature increase is not stagnant, but changing, which effectively rocks the atmospheric boat.
So, having said that, before bothering to defend the vast majority of scientists in their detailed research, most of which have studied these issues for 30+ years of their life (over and above the 10+ years of intense academic studies they underwent just to become "entry-level" doctoral), let's focus on "why" there's a resistance to accepting the facts presented on Climate Change:
The most significant feature to this event is the "unprecedented" increase in CO2 trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. This CO2, along with a multitude of other greenhouse gasses, are propagated by over a century of exponentially increasing pollutants produced by industry. So, when a buttload of information is presented to demonstrate that what they have been doing is irresponsible and will result in the decimation of this planet, of course there's going to be resistance to that notion. Why? Because it means they'll have to stop what they've been doing, and do something else. What does that mean? Well, it means that all the time, energy, and money they invested in a bad idea will need to be directed to alternatives and fixes. It means the economic models for their corporations are being threatened and that results in corporations fighting back, not because they're right, but because they're invested in a wrong.
Corporations are about profit, by any means necessary. Our societies, in fact, encourage such an approach. We purchase the lower priced item, which invariably means someone, or something, was exploited in order to get such a low overhead, and thus provide us with a low priced product. We buy low because it helps us on an individual level. But, on a global level we are complicit in the exploitation of less advantaged countries, be it their virtually enslaved workforce or their butchered landscapes. This is the consequence of a profit driven economy, whereby consumers aim for lower expense and investors aim for higher profit margins. The Economic Model* insists on continued growth, even if there is nowhere else to grow, and thus the Economic Model is destined to fail. But, corporations will resist this fact, not because they are ignorant of this fact, but because they strive for ever increasing profits to stay competitive, both in the consumer markets and the stock markets.
As profit is the endeavor, presentation of substantial data (which evidences climate change and the eventual decimation of our Earth) that threatens the profit margin will invariably be resisted. As such, the resistance comes in the form of propaganda. Public Relations firms, otherwise known as spin doctors, are hired by corporations to disseminate doubt, false information, and counter-psuedotheories. Why? Because the longer they can delay global acceptance of the overwhelming data presented by the scientific community, the longer they can maintain those profit margins, and thus the more investors they obtain. Fighting the notion Climate Change is in their best interest, in almost every respect. Corporations have the financial power, the profiteering will, and the historical track record (a minor example: the tobacco industry) to continue to present false information (doubt) in a successful bid to keep the coffers flowing.
That's the "why" of the false presentation. Now, let's see you try to argue the "why" of almost every scientific experts' deduction that climate change is, in fact, real. What is their incentive? Is it research grants? No, because they stand to make a helluva lot more money working in collusion with corporations. Is it "hippie" mentality? No, because each and every one of them graduated with one or more doctorates degrees from esteemed universities. Are they "environmentalists"? No, because most of them have, or are presently participating in research projects associated with how to exploit the environment. Are they simply wrong? Maybe... except for that nagging problem, which is that they have been right (even underestimated the severity) in almost every prediction regarding Climate Change over the past 20 years.
That leaves us with "no" viable reason why the scientific community would be posing a falsity. Now, considering all that I presented above, the only reason anyone would want to believe Climate Change is not occurring, is because it's a SCARY notion.
Well damn it, of course it's scary! It's not meant to be scary, but when all the evidence points to scary, scary is what it is. And it's scary for a reason. It's scary not because it's happening, but because we continue to have just enough people in the general populace, and in positions of power, who are playing propaganda & politics in order to ENSURE the worst case scenario happens.
That's my rant for this community. Let's see if some of you naysayers are willing to start researching the information that I can readily provide, but which you can readily obtain on your own. And stop picking what makes you feel good. Don't participate in the lie, don't lie to yourself. Give yourself the respect you deserve and examine all the evidence, not merely what makes you sleep at night.
* The Economic Model (EM) is the corporation's Achilles heel, in that it is fundamentally flawed. The EM is based on an ever-increasing market, supplied by never reducing resources. It is, essentially, the model for a perpetual machine, which simply cannot exist. Nonetheless, it is this model that corporations rely on in order to continue to obtain investors, without which they would invariably stagnate and collapse. At least in EM theory.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I think the people and corporations have received the message, i've seen so many electric and hybrid cars come out in the last two years, and the amount of energy saving products out today is amazing. While i still believe that global warming isn't as bad as they say, and you won't change my opinion on that. We've started to move in the right direction, and i think its only a matter of time before we see a completely revolutionized world, with the word " green " powering it all. Your environmentalists have won the war hellstorm, we're moving in the right direction and it seems like we're doing it at an exponential rate.
I'd like to comment on why this happened however, and the realization i came too disgusted me. It wasn't until the average guy could save money that we as a society started to embrace the notion of eco-friendly. If it was cheaper to use the gas guzzling products we had only 10 years ago, people would still use them.
I'd like to comment on why this happened however, and the realization i came too disgusted me. It wasn't until the average guy could save money that we as a society started to embrace the notion of eco-friendly. If it was cheaper to use the gas guzzling products we had only 10 years ago, people would still use them.
DeletedUser
Guest
Much of this was due to tax incentives, government grants and loans. But the advances are still far outweighed by the obstacles and by the fierce destabilizing efforts of the petroleum-based auto industry, and by the petroleum corporations. It's an uphill battle, have no doubt about that.
Super fast, global warming isn't a belief system, and it's not about opinions, it's about facts and evidence. Hiding your head in the sand doesn't give you insight, it merely leaves you thinking whatever the hell you want to think. How is that even remotely logical, or even responsible?
If you're willing to learn, I'm willing to provide additional information.
My environmentalists? Hehe, silly. Anyway, it's not happening at an exponential rate. In fact, it's happening far too slowly and far too late. In many cases, it's not happening at all.
Which goes back to "short-term" satisfaction, which still governs consumerism.
DeletedUser
Guest
.DeletedUser
Guest
Okay... what about this?
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SingerNIPCCvsIPCC_2011.pdf
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/SingerNIPCCvsIPCC_2011.pdf
- Status