toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for July 13th, 2011 10:01 AM

toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[some other dude]

Yes, of course.


(in that "Global Warming" is a fraud, constructed by the likes of Al Gore)

 

[Dena]

I don't know.

 

[ebenz47037]

Only the gasbags in Washington, D.C.

 

[Samstarrett]

Global? Who knows? It sure has been getting colder around here, though.

 

[some other dude]

and cue Barbie with a stupefyingly large number of stats and graphs and reams upon reams of "evidence" to support the fraud, in 3, 2, 1....

 

[Tambora]

No.

 

[Buzzword]

Meh.
I think CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is real and verifiable.
I think the heat-blocking properties of CO2 in the atmosphere are real and viable.

I know we are experiencing new extremes in temperature and weather change, especially in the U.S.

Meteorologists are being forced to rewrite the tornado safety manual, because more and more of the tornadoes being produced now are powerful enough to (and in our most recent outbreak DID) suck a family out of the bathtub they thought was safe, suck a child out of a basement after pulling the house off of it, etc etc.

This summer, Oklahoma has been breaking previous heat records left and right, especially in number of days with temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.


Not sure how all that fits into the "global warming" paradigm?
But we are definitely seeing new, more dangerous weather patterns than previously recorded.

 

[annabenedetti]

No.

It will be used as the excuse for global governance, however, and the forced redistribution of national wealth.

http://texasgopvote.com/cancun-clim...position-its-global-tax-design-meeting-003060

 

[frostmanj]

Yes, but only in a very negligible way.

Natural carbon emissions amount to 750 gigatons per year. Man made emissions are 29 gigatons per year. This according to my fifth grade math education means that of the total carbon emissions (779 gigatons) humans account for 3%. Now even if you adhere to the thought this is still a 3% imbalance from status quo on earth, you can't account for natural fluctuations over the life of the earth that have exceeded this percentage with only negligible historical effect.

The U.S. (18.11%) and China (23.3%) combined account for 41.44% of the worlds total manmade carbon emissions. This amount multiplied by the given 3% of total carbon emissions means that our two largest carbon emitting countries account for 1.2% of total carbon emissions on earth. If you could somehow convince both the U.S. and China to completely stop emitting carbon (impossible at this time) you would still only affect total carbon emissions by 1.2 percent. Not much of a gain for completely wrecking the two largest economys in the world.

 

[some other dude]

Yes, but only in a very negligible way.

Natural carbon emissions amount to 750 gigatons per year. Man made emissions are 29 gigatons per year. This according to my fifth grade math education means that of the total carbon emissions (779 gigatons) humans account for 3%. Now even if you adhere to the thought this is still a 3% imbalance from status quo on earth, you can't account for natural fluctuations over the life of the earth that have exceeded this percentage with only negligible historical effect.

The U.S. (18.11%) and China (23.3%) combined account for 41.44% of the worlds total manmade carbon emissions. This amount multiplied by the given 3% of total carbon emissions means that our two largest carbon emitting countries account for 1.2% of total carbon emissions on earth. If you could somehow convince both the U.S. and China to completely stop emitting carbon (impossible at this time) you would still only affect total carbon emissions by 1.2 percent. Not much of a gain for completely wrecking the two largest economys in the world.

Yes, but think of the polar bears!

 

[frostmanj]

Yes, but think of the polar bears!

I keep forgetting about the Polar Bears!!! Where are my priorities?!? :noway:

 

[Sherman]

Is man responsible?---Here's the hot air causing it.

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last! -- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalog )

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. -- David Foreman, Earth First!

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. -- Pentti Linkola

I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight -- David Foreman, Earth First!

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

This is head banging stupid.:bang: If we can shut the mouths of these morons we would probably have an ice age.

 

[Granite]

Yes, I'm sure we're contributing to climate change. It's pretty foolish to think human activity can't or won't effect the planet.

 

[some other dude]

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight -- David Foreman, Earth First!

So why don't these guys put their money where their mouths are and kill themselves? :idunno:

 

[Sherman]

So why don't these guys put their money where their mouths are and kill themselves? :idunno:

If they did that, we wouldn't have their mouths putting out hot air and we would have an ice age. We can't have that can we?:jawdrop:

 

[Stripe]

toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

People do have an effect on the climate, but it is almost certainly completely negligible (unless you take this approach).

What is interesting is that global warming is great evidence for an ancient global catastrophe. In order to have all this ice to melt, it had to freeze from water onto the continents. In order to get onto the continents it had to evaporate at vastly increased rates. That means the oceans had to be warmer. But at the same time the continents had to be colder than they are today.

The only way to achieve this setup is to raise the level of the continents because there is no way that only the oceans could be warmed.

All that's left is to figure out how long gravity would take to reverse such an anomaly - and as luck would have it we can measure earthquakes today that are a continuation of that settling.

 

[frostmanj]

Yes, I'm sure we're contributing to climate change. It's pretty foolish to think human activity can't or won't effect the planet.

Agreed. But, you don't gain any credibility by overstating the effect.

 

[Sherman]

People do have an effect on the climate, but it is almost certainly completely negligible (unless you take this approach).

What is interesting is that global warming is great evidence for an ancient global catastrophe. In order to have all this ice to melt, it had to freeze from water onto the continents. In order to get onto the continents it had to evaporate at vastly increased rates. That means the oceans had to be warmer. But at the same time the continents had to be colder than they are today.

The only way to achieve this setup is to raise the level of the continents because there is no way that only the oceans could be warmed.

All that's left is to figure out how long gravity would take to reverse such an anomaly - and as luck would have it we can measure earthquakes today that are a continuation of that settling.

:up: Thanks for the factual details on global warming. I hope people here could tell I was being facetious in my previous posts.

Global temperature is also influenced by the sunspot cycle. In the past 70 years the sun has seen a lot of this activity.

 

[Krsto]

I don't know about the greenhouse effect but ash from coal burning in the northern hemisphere has been settling on the north polar cap causing the ice to absorb more sun and melt. The NW Passage was open for the first time in centuries in 2007 and has been staying open longer every year since due to the melting of the polar cap. At the north pole the ice has gone from 6 feet thick to 3 feet thick and they predict by 2030 the only way to get to the north pole will be by boat. At some point in the near future they predict the ice melting will unleash trapped methane gas which will warm the planet to a point no amount of coal burning reduction will save the polar cap.

What effect all that will have on those other than polar bears I don't know. I'm not convinced global warming is a bad thing overall, as long as it doesn't happen too fast for our populations and economies to adapt.