I Am A Global Warming Denier, Hear Me Rawr!

[husker 0]

And I want to see GOOD SIGNIFICANT proof of global warming.

That is the problem. There is no "good" proof for it and there isn't really any "good" proof against it. This is like fighting over religion--it leads to nowhere.

[sylenzednuke 0]

So what if I refuse to believe everything the government says?

If you expect to find "good proof" over television, you're only going to find Al Gore on there. Go look, there's loads of proof and evidence across Science networks and resources. Plus, this one member on Xisto had a disturbing image in the signature. If that's not proof enough, I don't know what is. If you think Government were the ones to cook things about Global Warming up ... you can't cook a dish that's already there.

Talking about Government, well I'm an Anarchist ... so you know my say on that. XD



Besides, I think your entire "I don't to believe" rant is a halfhearted act to show how much you are "anti-Government" 'cause you've been going on about Al Gore and the Government when they are completely insignificant when the real deal is concerned. We aren't asking you to believe, you won't be able to make it any better even if you did.
Edited August 23, 2008 by sylenzednuke (see edit history)

[Saint_Michael 3]

If you want Proof go to North and South poles, go to the Gulf of Mexico where these dead spots are (lack of oxygen), see all the animal and plant life that are dying from deforestation, erosion of the land, the pollution that is produce from and coal companies (Texas has both), the very car and bus you ride in heck even that cell phone produced waste. The list goes on Mermaid and if you need a TV and corrupted and greedy government to tell you that then at least we know what the new generation of kids are like and more worried about.Fashion, text messaging and myspace and trying to date the high school quarterback as well. Your generation needs to grow and realize that everyone else that is older then you is not going to fix the problem, the baby boomer generation refuses to do anything, and generation X is worried about making millions off of computer technology that produces a lot more pollution and waste then most things.I think it would be smart of us to not even further respond to this topic, because the repulicans know how to brainwash young mines and tell them all the little white lies that they claim is the truth.

[electriic ink 1]

No, it was supposed to happen about 1000 years ago.

Wikipedia begs to differ.

 

At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the dipole field to temporarily collapse by 30004000 AD

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

And I want to see GOOD SIGNIFICANT proof of global warming.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

So what if I refuse to believe everything the government says?

Then, that makes you as stupid as the people who believe everything the government say.

[truefusion 3]

True, I am a bit sceptic about the whole thing but we shall see in a few decades time and something tells the people who researched this all in detail are correct.

And I want to see GOOD SIGNIFICANT proof of global warming.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Seems like only two days was needed? But i don't adhere to the connotations of "global warming," and i still question global warming.

 

I would agree that solar and wind power is the way to go put people are making sure they can make a profit from it. Of course, there lies a problem and that is how obtrusive these technologies are and the fact it could cost most then people think.

The money will eventually be regained over time. It's an investment that pays off. With nuclear energy, you have to pay to clean up the waste. The more nuclear power plants, the more money wasted, the more waste to put away. We'll eventually run out of "safe" places to put the waste. Having more nuclear power plants will just speed up that process.

 

Honestly, you don't know the meaning of "evidence" if you think there isn't any.

There's a difference between knowing the evidence and presenting the evidence. You only spoke, assuming things true. If you chose to rely on others to provide for the evidence or hoped that the topic starter would do the same research you have done, why have others do the work for you and why would you expect the topic starter to do the same research you have done when they've done the opposite research and are convinced in the same way you're convinced by the evidence which you have done research on? Anyone can say, "Go get yourself educated." :fart: *coughs* Woo! ! ...Okay, enough joking around.

 

And do you have any idea how much these couple of degrees mean? 2 degrees in your own body and you're screwed. Imagine 2 degrees for such a humongous, inter-twined and fragile ecosystem, please? Again, you fail to notice that with the obvious increase, there is a rate change too. But well, people believe no matter how much they can know.

Just like people can overcome a change in body temperature, so can the earth's surface. Just wait for it to decrease.

 

But well, we don't need to worry. We survived the last Ice Age, we'll survive this one too.

The reason for surviving any coming ice age isn't necessarily the same for any previous ones, assuming it was indeed us, if any previous ice ages occurred. We have technology to help us today. But at the same time, technology may prove to be useless and be our demise for relying on it so much.

 

Nuclear power

Solar energy. http://www.opera.com/blogs/news/

 

Wikipedia begs to differ.

Wikipedia isn't absolute. It may help, but it's not absolute.

 

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

For those making snide remarks in their posts, consider becoming more self controlled.

[Echo_of_thunder 1]

Well if some of you have read my postings on this. I have always felt that this globle warming is only a cycle that the earth is going through. we here in the USA have only been keeping weather records for 200 plus years now. Who are we to say it is globle warming? True man has not helped matters. Years ago we worried of an ice age, now it is globle warming. But I will say this though. if we do not stop trashing mother earth. Sothing will happen. but as for the globle warming?the heating of the earth has to be a cycle just like the seasons. also there other things that also have a cycle such as hurricanes and tornados. some of you may recall 2005 when we had 28 names hurricanes. a 1st. but there have been other years when we had 20 or so named storms. There is a patten for this. on avg ever 9 to 11 years there will be more hurricanes than in light years. It is much the same with tornados. in the light years of hurricanes the tornados incress. and if you really want to get into this. solar flares. every 10 to 11 yrs. So you see everything has a pattern or cycle. Just as I feel the earth is going through a cycle. How bad it will get or for how long? That is the question? nobody knows the answer too.

[electriic ink 1]

Seems like only two days was needed? But i don't adhere to the connotations of "global warming," and i still question global warming.

Fair enough I seem to have strengthened my stance a little in order to prove my point

 

With nuclear energy, you have to pay to clean up the waste. The more nuclear power plants, the more money wasted, the more waste to put away. We'll eventually run out of "safe" places to put the waste. Having more nuclear power plants will just speed up that process.

Unfortunately, that's the price you have to pay for good, clean energy. Nuclear power is the only way forward - there's lots of U-235 left and it's totally reliable, whereas solar power, for instance, isn't.

 

 

Solar energy. http://www.opera.com/blogs/news/

Nuclear power

 

Wikipedia isn't absolute. It may help, but it's not absolute.

It's right the vast majority of the time and I'd more than happy if you were to make a point, quoting information from there.

[sylenzednuke 0]

The money will eventually be regained over time. It's an investment that pays off. With nuclear energy, you have to pay to clean up the waste. The more nuclear power plants, the more money wasted, the more waste to put away. We'll eventually run out of "safe" places to put the waste. Having more nuclear power plants will just speed up that process.

And you definitely have a strong point there. The only problem that I see with Solar Energy is that it's not reliable and it's not available at one point on the planet throughout, and where it is present for larger periods of time, it isn't present in sufficient amounts. We do need other alternative and reliable sources apart from Solar Energy together with Solar Energy. I think it's best to either try out everything we can or dig up holes and hide ourselves.

 

There's a difference between knowing the evidence and presenting the evidence. You only spoke, assuming things true. If you chose to rely on others to provide for the evidence or hoped that the topic starter would do the same research you have done, why have others do the work for you and why would you expect the topic starter to do the same research you have done when they've done the opposite research and are convinced in the same way you're convinced by the evidence which you have done research on? Anyone can say, "Go get yourself educated." :fart: *coughs* Woo! ! ...Okay, enough joking around.

Jokes.

 

I could provide with information but most of that would be largely refuted by the "biased, incomplete, political" argument and the rest which is left by the "it's in the Earth's cycle" argument. The reason why I only "spoke" was due to obvious frustration over the little amount of research that was put into such a "hear me rawr" post. You can't blame me for that, can you? You want me to list down links here in my next post, fine, I can very well do that.

 

I already explained the mechanism for the extreme weather change for even a layman to understand but I can't go further. There are sources available already for that.

 

As S_M said. Go over to the poles and see if you can't believe in images. Go over to the Gulf countries. Come over to India and see how the country with one of the most diverse weathers has been affected in as many ways. That's the entire problem with Global Warming, it's so easily mistaken for the "Earth's Cycle." And even if it is the Earth's cycle, it would still result in an Ice Age, just like it did in earlier. There's nothing you can do so why this last act of showcasing your "enlightenment" by disagreeing to something which doesn't even hold any substantial point anymore? We're doomed ... in many ways to come. Using Ethanol won't help and we'd probably be spending more time weaving sweaters instead of focusing on alternative sources of energy by the time it affects us.

 

What I wanted to point out was, Global Warming is not the act of Man alone, but we've definitely sped things up. The Ozone layer too has been largely affected by weather alone and not man, but, that change is cyclic and it repairs itself in adequacy over a period of months because the causing factor alone disappears. But the CFCs and other particles that we send up there don't. They stay there as they aren't an outcome of weather and screw things up.

 

Just like people can overcome a change in body temperature, so can the earth's surface. Just wait for it to decrease.

It will, of course overcome itself. It always has. When did "Global Warming" deny that?

 

The reason for surviving any coming ice age isn't necessarily the same for any previous ones, assuming it was indeed us, if any previous ice ages occurred. We have technology to help us today. But at the same time, technology may prove to be useless and be our demise for relying on it so much.

The Pleistocene age was when one of the most remarkable evolutionary changes happened to man-kind. And no, I wouldn't mail you samples of fossils to prove that, Google is your friend or your local museum.

 

And for the technology part, the point to be noted is that we didn't even have "civilization" and all of its viscous assumptions to start. Forget about technology. Besides, most technology that we overly rely on has been developed pretty recently going by the scales of it to have any major effect on our biochemistry. It can't possibly "hinder" our survivability in this Ice Age. We might not be the same in number, but we definitely won't go extinct.

 

Wikipedia isn't absolute. It may help, but it's not absolute.

Help. That's the keyword. But well, it's fun and perfectly justified to not even click on a Wikipedia link, ever.

 

For those making snide remarks in their posts, consider becoming more self controlled.

Outside provocation is sometimes uncontrollable.

[anwiii 17]

well, i am not a big al gore fan, but i AM a fan of anyone who puts an effort to help the world and al gore is doing just that by informing people of the possibilities of global warming. it's surprising to me how people are so quick to discredit a nobel peace prize winner without really giving any information why global warming doesn't exist. seems a bit subjective to me...even if i'm not a big al gore fan

[serverph 0]

all i can say is, ENJOY 2008, boys and girls of all ages! this year will be THE COLDEST YEAR in this century (and we're just in the early stages... way long before year 3000). and this is especially true for those in AMERICA, for you will never experience SNOW and the COLD weather as you had before. for us in the tropical regions, we're born with a good amount of genes to combat such adverse heat conditions that is sure to come in the coming years, and it is not likely that we're going to drop like flies because of the onslaught of a heat wave. and we're brown-skinned as well (a good deal of melanine for sunscreen), so the sun is not so much an issue for us and we are not as prone to skin cancer as others with whiter complexions.

 

as for weather changes, we're battling the whole range of typhoons and tropical storms from A to Z, and then some, in the annual international nomenclature of destructive storms. we're used to flooding, we're used to weeks of no power supply, we're used to the devastation. in short, we have adapted ourselves better than those from the land of milk and honey. we shouldn't be the ones heard whining when the time of nature's retributions come.

 

sure, we can always say GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH! sadly, it takes a whole world to combat it if ever it's true. and for those of us who believe it as an incontrovertible truth of science, as a part of a natural cycle or as resulting from human acts, just do your share to stifle it's onset. maybe we'll get to enjoy more years of calm, so to speak, before the ever-greater "storms in life" to come.

[samlockart 0]

Gah, I hate peoples attitude against global warming/climate change. They denie it and for some reason they think it gives them the right to litter, drive to somewhere which is only down the road and other crap. And to all of you deniers. I know the tempretures have always risen over time, and we are coming out of an ice age. But it has NEVER RISEN THIS FAST before, there has NEVER been the amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, carbons, and so on as there was in the atmosphere a few hundred years ago, and yes these are green house gases, they stop heat rays from escaping. Something is happening, stop deniying it!Sam.

[kleong 0]

Global warming is a very serious threat and it is for real. Ice wall breaking. Glacier melting. All these are prove that the world is getting hotter. Quite possible that this is a normal cycle that Earth goes through. But is this also the cycle that eventually led to the wiping out of dinosaurs, nobody can tell. On the subject of hotter, El Nino is on its way wrecking chaos.

[mm22 0]

Personally I don't feel right knowing I am being very bad to the Earth, either by littering or driving just down the road. That is to say being it global warming or not we don't have the right to abuse the Earth resources especially when we plan on squeezing 6 billion people (and counting) on it. It might be hard for some people to realize but all upon which we have built our modern society is a big exaggeration. Bigger houses, bigger cars and fancier malls. Buy today and trash tomorrow. This is not how the equilibrium between humans and the planer has been preserved for thousands of years. Sure you might say the world is now more democratic, it is not only a few (kings, emperors, etc) exceeding their needs and hitting hard on the Earth resources. It is now more and more people having a chance to "be kings" and being able to afford things that were unthinkable a few decades ago, like "buy today and trash tomorrow". Things had to be treasured back then, you'd never know what was going to happen and you'd better be prepared to the next challenge.All that is not to say progress has been evil, I am actually pro-progress generally speaking. That is to say that progress can be used in a better way than "buy today and trash tomorrow" and "drive down the alley" mottoes. We have the technology to make both we humans and the planet keep our dignities intact and proceed to the next generations with a more positive outlook.Speaking out of metaphors all those wind farms and small solar installations are only a drop in the ocean, but the ocean has many many inhabitants and if only half of those inhabitants were able to produce their own energy, and most importantly to reduce their resource usage within reasonable limits... (sorry for falling into metaphor again) That said it doesn't help if people keep denying global warming just to feel more comfortable with themselves pretending they are not being a part of the Earth degradation. I say that even if global warming were a "natural cycle" all the steps taken to counteract it would only benefit the Earth and ultimately its inhabitants, that is to say us all.

[jaychant 0]

Global warming is a very serious threat and it is for real. Ice wall breaking. Glacier melting. All these are prove that the world is getting hotter. Quite possible that this is a normal cycle that Earth goes through. But is this also the cycle that eventually led to the wiping out of dinosaurs, nobody can tell. On the subject of hotter, El Nino is on its way wrecking chaos.

I wish people would use better grammar. Even though there are just as much GCC (Global Climate Change, aka Global Warming) denialists that have bad grammer, it makes it look like GCC is just made up by stupid people, which it isn't.

GCC is not likely at all to make humanity go extinct. Humans are spread out all over the planet, and there is no way a change in climate will result in extinction. Also, the planet will do fine despite GCC. The reason GCC is such a problem is it will drastically change our way of life. The changes in climate will make it very difficult to yield crops, resulting in food shortage, which will cause famine, even in the most developed countries. Chaos will ensue as citizens fight over food and water, potentially resulting in collapse of government in many countries.

In the end, humanity itself will survive. The survivors of the crisis will find a way. But I can't say the same for the ones who are killed by the crisis. Denialists, this means you, your children, and your grandchildren. Do you really want this future for your children? Are you seriously willing to risk the future of your own flesh and blood just to avoid paying a little extra taxes? Also, did I mention that you yourself will probably end up in this crisis?

Also, let's not forget: Even if GCC is fake (which I hope it is), there is only so much oil on the planet. We are going to run out eventually. Do you seriously want your country to fall behind? If the supply of oil worldwide runs out, all countries dependent on it will be out of its power source; chaos will ensue, and the country will fall behind.

Since I am making this post, I think I will refute two popular arguments made by denialists.

Many GCC denialists make the claim that since trees need carbon dioxide, if we try to reduce CO2 levels, trees will die. I have two things to say: First, trees don't need carbon dioxide to survive, they need it to grow. They can survive without carbon dioxide. Second, I don't think trees have become dependent on us releasing extra carbon dioxide into the air in order to get what they need. We have only been spitting extra carbon dioxide for around 200 years, and plants have been on Earth for many hundreds of millions of years. The method of fighting GCC is not to somehow "cleanse" the atmosphere of CO2 as you imagine it; we simply want to stop releasing extra CO2 into the air that gets released when we burn coal and oil (so stop burning coal and oil). Since plants have survived for as long as they have without extra carbon dioxide, I think they will do just fine if we stop polluting the atmosphere.

Also, GCC denialists tend to make the argument that there's nothing we can do about GCC because it's natural, so why bother? Well, I say to you that it must be some coincidence that the raise in CO2 and tempurature happened to start when we started the industrial revolution. Are you seriously going to lie to yourself and say we are not having an effect? We are having a major effect. NASA claims that volcanoes release 0.1 tons of carbon every year, while our oil activities release 7 tons. I don't think NASA is really that stupid and it is very dangerous to gamble that they are. Also, you are probably right that we can't stop GCC from affecting our lives. But that doesn't mean we should just give up. Do you give up when you are losing a game of football? No, you keep playing and hope for the best. So why should we give up here? Because if we lose this, we will face major disaster on a wordwide basis. If you give up, you fail yourself and your kids.

EDIT: If you are still a skeptic, go to YouTube and watch a video called How It All Ends, and its expansion pack (which begins with "How It All Ends: Index).
Edited June 20, 2009 by jaychant (see edit history)

[mm22 0]

Since I am making this post, I think I will refute two popular arguments made by denialists.

Really good post jaychant. I think it would be just as easy to prove that most arguments used by deniers are groundless. Even if there were some good arguments there is not doubt there are much more important arguments in favor of a quick and clear acknowledgment that something has to be done in order to slow down global warming. It is probably true we cannot stop it, but we can probably slow it down and give the Earth the time to recover itself, it has done it before, it can do it again.

And it is not much about saving Earth. Earth will survive no matter what we do to it, as long as the Sun is there and no major astronomical events happen. It's about saving ourselves and the progress we have made during our era, increased democracy and on average more possibilities for individuals. Yes we won't be extinct but is it worth sacrificing part of what we have achieved for mere greed or convenient denial?