This is for you, Nick and Gabriel - have fun, but be civil!!!
Of course, anyone can post, but Nick & Gabriel have been arguing about this for awhile...
From Wikipedia:
"The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.
The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) concur with the assessment that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [human caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"[1].
However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.
There is considerable opposition from parts of the political and business communities both to the conclusion that humans are causing climate change, and to the need to take action to reduce human effects on climate. Chiefly, opposition arises because of claims that these actions would cause enormous expense and disruption to the current geopolitical and economic situation, with no obvious recognizable short-term benefits.
This is a public and political debate. While the climate projections involved in the discussion are constrained by basic physical principles (though they depend on assumptions about emissions), political and economic effects of both global warming and mitigation are more difficult to quantify. As an example, in asking whether the costs of reducing fossil fuel dependency compare with the costs of not taking action, one is confronted by the fact that it is difficult to anticipate social or technological changes that affect such costs."
So what do you think? What is your responsibility as a member of human society? What is the US's role as a word leader? What should businesses do? What suggestions do you have? Are you worried about the world that you are leaving for your grandchildren's grandchildren? Or is this all much ado about nothing?
37 comments:
It has been scientifically proven by all but our Fuhrer's personal scientist that for 200 years (which was, coincidentally, the start of the Industrial Revolution), the heat of the Earth has been rising. The North Pole is melting. Polar Bears are dying. Siberia's permafrost is melting. Antarctica is melting. Islands are flooding. What proof do you need?
Thw planet has been warming for longer than that ... so your statement is true, but it is modified to help your side of the arguement. The earth has naturally occuring "seasons" of ice ages and warm periods, and this repeats. Unless it is to rise above the average peak temperature of these warm periods, we are not warming abnormally. CO2 HAS been proven to help this warming, but the amount WE have put there is estimated near 5%. It is naturally occuring in the atmosphere, we have added a tiny bit that would not destroy the earth.
And it was also estimated that the world would end in 2000. Did it? No.
How do we know that we are tipping these natural seasons out of balance? For all we know, by the time a new Ice Age happens, the Earth will be a crisp, fried husk.
And it began warming at an abnormally quick rate beginning 200 years ago, but it has been warming since the Ice Age. Therefore, we can assume that the Industrial Revolution sped up the process. By your logic, if someone is running towards a person and fires a gun, he did not murder the person because the bullet was already moving when he fired the gun (kinda sorta, best example I could think of.)
I R TEH WIN!
It was also estimated that we'd run out of oil by 2000, and we still have plenty of reserves not yet touched. Yes, it began warming at a slightly abnormal rate, about 5 to ten percent above normal.
That could be a lot. A tiny percent mistake in one of the Mars probes sent it millions of miles of course. Just because it is a small percent doesn't mean that it is a small consequence.
This is fabulous - I love it!
Mrs. Q
Oh, and your statement of oil helped my arguement, not yours. Estimations can always be off, so your "5%" may indeed actually be 35, or even 75%. I find it dubious that the millions of smokestacks of the world, in both China and the United States, are producing only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere's carbon.
I just love seeing ( or in this case read about) nerds fighting
It IS a small percent. Much CO2 was already there, the atmosphere is huge.
We have put some there, but CO2 is not the only thing smokestacks put out. For example, smoke. Which is unburned fuel and excess chemicals from combustion (obvoisly not good for the environment, but they don't apply to this arguement.) My point is, there really is no evidence that we are contributing to the current warming of the earth, but there is no valid evidence to the contrary, either. That's why I take the middle stance, saying we contribute a small part of the temperature change. Again, we are only adding to natural warming after an ice age.
You seemed not only to have blown off my entire arguement concerning why "5%" is indeed bad, but also posted information that would hurt you in a completely seperate topic. If smokestacks are already producing things that destroy the environment, why not get rid of them, find an alternate, and solve this whole thing altogether? SUre, it may hurt business a bit, but what is more important: business or existence? And besides, the evidence that we are contributing is clear: permafrost is something that should never, ever mealt in natural circumstances, but it is melting anyway. Superhurricanes, fueled by warming waters, are growing more frequent.
Who do you blame: some kind of "cycle" or Texaco? The cycle, because if you blame Texaco then you are hurting our Fuhrer's personal agenda. There is no such thing as an effective middle ground in this field, and finding a middle ground is usually worse then choosing a stance anyway. By remaining on the middle ground in the beginning of World War Two, we contributed to France's fall, the bombing of England, and the massacres in Russia. Had we done more sooner, World War Two might have ended in 1940. I do realize we are on a seperate topic, but sometimes learning from the past (something you don't do well, it seems) is a good thing to do. And its not just smokestacks: it is the incessant pride of America to build and sell massive SUVs and Hummers even in the wake of a Middle Eastern Crisis and a "possible" Global Warming.
Oh, and Naomi, you're just jealous cause I am too smexy for you.
how do you stop global warming?
how long will it take for the earth to flood?
To stop Global Warming, we need to cut down on emissions (hint hint, no more oil, hint hint, use biodeisal and hydrogen) and stop burning so much oil.
How long will it take to flood? At this rate, who knows? Anywhere from 20 to 1,000 years, probably. Depends on whether the Alaskan Pipeline gets expanded and such.
I still don't get global warming completely.
Gabriel, Gabriel...
The hurricane season this tear was almost nonexistant. Sure, the last few years have obviously been bad, but this year was fine. No "superhurricanes." Yes, we should tighten regulations on what comes out of smokestacks, because they are bad.
What's wrong with a middle ground? There isn't enough evidence on either side, so you take the center. WW2 and political environmentalism are completely different. Learning from the past is good, but not in the most remotely different topics possible.
There is no "incessant pride" to build and sell SUVs, just a viable market the car companies access. The demand made them start a supply.
The first SUV that really caught on was the Ford Explorer in 1992. It started the whole thing. The Jeep was there, but it was not the stereotypical American SUV of now.
The Middle Eastern Crisis should not stop America from doing what it wants to do, there are huge oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska that are not yet accessed.
Also, you are forfeiting our rights as Americans. I have the right to buy a massive Hummer if I want, this is a free country. Not to say its good, but its my right.
You cannot make it illegal for me to buy a certain car because of your liberal shenanigans, it forfeits my rights. It is also my right to burn oil, stupid or not. You can't take it away, unless you bring down the nation first. Come on, the world WILL NOT flood in 20 years. That is absurd, just like other examples of excessive exxagerating in predictions, just because the scientists want to be politically correct. They said in the 70s (an oil crisis larger than our current one, prices were the same, but it was 30 years ago.)that we'd run out of oil before 2000. Watch those GAS-POWERED CARS go by... hmm, we're definitely out of gas! They have been predicting ever since the global warming theory was created that we would flood, die, run out of gas, burn of the sun's radiation, and lots of other junk. None has yet happened, only a 1-degree temperature change since the early 20th century that has caused some small changes.
Who said permafrost never melts? They mean it doesn't melt from season to season, but over thousands of years it could. We haven't been around long enough to experience a whole warming-cooling cycle yet. Also, the Alaskan Pipeline is not going to destroy the world. Maybe, just maybe, it and many other factors could possibly raise our temperature slightl over centuries. Bye!
You have lost total grasp of reality. You keep on proving my points, and put down my arguements simply for being "absurd". It was absurd that terrorists would be able to attack the United States. Then 9/11.
I refuse to argue any more, as undoubtedly you will simply resort to some more of the Fuhrer's methods of putting down arguements. Good day sir.
I would say sorry Nick but I agree with Gabriel for this one. Even though the earth has been warming for years we contribute a very high amount of deadly resources into the atmosphere every DAY!!!CO2 isn't the only thing that contributes to Global warming, you even said it in your third response.
republicans
sorry Katie :p
CUGH COOUGH!!!Yes, this year there was not 'super hurricane' in the U.S, but lets not get selfish here. Have any of you heard of Typhoon Durian, which has killed an estimated 1,000 people in the Philippines????? THATS *word* HORRIBLE! Who have we to blame for global warming, ourselves. Its not like the animals are polluting the earth, they arent spilling OIL into our water. WE OURSELVES are contributing to global warming each and everyday. We as humans, even if we dont notice it, are killing the earth! WE are becoming more and more dependent on things that pollute the atmoshere.GLOBAL WARMING isnt just going to magically going to go away by itself, we have to do SOMETHING if we want this beautiful world to SURVIVE. The future is in our hands, and we have to choices on what to do with it; #1- crush it #2- protect it. You choose
love-
GABY!!!=D
5% may not seem like a LOT to you nick, but think about how big the world is. That LITTLE 5% can do more damage than you can fathom.
gaby
First off, comparing our President, bad or not, to Adolph Hitler is terrible. Bill Clinton was bad by almost everyone's opinion, but he was not called a Fuhrer. George Bush may be a bad President, but he is nowhere near comparable to a man who caused a massive, random war versus the world and killed millions for no apparent reason.
No one said it was absurb that terrorists would attack us, as they had before 9/11. I sat absurd exactly once in my whole post, and have many reasons to back up my statements. Otherwise, how could it be so long?
Also, Gabby, who ever said that natural disasters were of a human cause? That is but an obscure little idea that is still massively debated, it cannot be used as evidence. Also, oil spills ruining ecosystems and global warming are seperate. Oil spills are obvoisly bad, but off topic.
In the first place, everyone who says we need to become environmentally friendly is a hypocrite unless they themselves are not hurting the environment. I am not hurting the environment any more than Gabriel, yet he calls for massive government change (forfeiting our rights), and doesn't change himself.
Hypocrites.
FIRST of all GABBY is not my name
GABY is my name!!!!SECOND oil spills do contribute to global warming...research man! BTW i am not a hypocryte...never have i said that i do not harm the environment,im very positive that i do/did in the past and so forth, however we really should start improving our bad habits soon before we damage anymore
well the phone is ringing and i gtg but ill bbl!!!byebeye
gaby
Can anyone else out there find answer to some of the questions brought up?
Interesting argument and comments so far.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/alk250/impactoilspills.html
^
|
|
|
|
read learn etc...
researching is fun lol
love-
gaby
http://www.personal.psu.edu/eac209/Oil%20Spils.htm
oh btw the other one i posted also had to do with oil spills and how it contributes to global warming
love-
gaby
oh, also nick...i was not stating that all natural disasters were caused by humans...infact i do believe i never even commented that....
gaby
I was watching the news and there was a seen that said a ice berg made its way. all the way to the south Atlantic..that was sooo shocking to me..serious global worming
-Fatimah
An iceburg moving all the way to the south atlantic is good, that means it was actually cold enough for it to go that far. It would have otherwise melted long before it got there.
but its BREAKING APART!!!THAT ISNT GOOD
gaby
ICEBERGS EXIST NATURALLY! Global warming is creating more of them, but the fact they exist is normal. And the fact that one got all the way to the South Atlantic is good, because it had to pass through the equatorial region, which is the hottest part of the world. So, if it didn't melt doing that, what will make it melt?
wow! i have never really thought about global warming. sure, ive known that its been there, but ive never really understood what it is! i am very scared for my grandchildren and other decendents to come! suggestions i have are just to try and conserve things as much as possible! things like oil will be greatly needed to run things such as air coolers and other machinery. i know im DEFINATLY not as wise on this topic as some..*cough gabriel and nick cough*..but that would be my suggestion. and theyll probably think im an idiot, but whatever. haha!
Even though the iceberg went through the South Atlantic that doesn't mean it still won't melt. The iceberg has to endure the daily pressure from global warming.
I think the U.N. need to come up with a team of excellent scientists, and create ideas to help stop or at last slow down global warming. One of the main things they need to focus on is finding something else that cars can run on and factories can operate machines from because that is what is causing the damage to the ozone layer, which is, of course, causing global warming.
why do nick and gabriel get their own blog? i want one!!!!!!
Me and Gabriel have been known to be, um, very politically opposite. This would the, obviously, mean that global warming would be a good topic for us, especially since we just so happen to know so much about it.
Because it's fun to watch them argue - at least here is better than class!
Suggest a topic - I'll be happy to post it.
So many things to blog about right now, but I've been a little focused on the supervolcano stuff - water on Mars, spacewalks, etc...
Post another about the baby panda! she was finally named last friday.her name means"Atlanta Beauty", im not sure how 2 spell it but its like mi-lan.-something like that but shes getting big fast!
We should officially close this and the other global warming topic... they are old and unused.
Post a Comment