Global Warming Poster Question

Global warming of up to 3 degrees will increase the food supply, so we should pollute the planet enough to produce that 3 degrees of increase.

Is it still called pollution if it produces a desirable effect (i.e., more food)?

Yup, I do. *Running off to gas up my Suburban while leaving the tap running*

CO2 is not a pollutant. Ask any plant.

What resources have we used up?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

I asked your wife and she is vehement that CO2 (or at least the CO2 eminating from you) is a pollutant.

Think again wrote:

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

I asked your wife and she is vehement that CO2 (or at least the CO2 eminating from you) is a pollutant.

what?

wilfredo wrote:

what?

You'll figure it out.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Even if global warming is not taking place do you really think polluting the planet and using up all its resources so quickly is a good idea?

How is this question even relevant? Can you not debate the issue of "man-made global warming" on its own without bringing into play a separate issue? This is the very hallmark of Leftist thinking: Equate opposition to their version of reality with opposition to a universal moral value (which is ultimately unrelated!).

I believe global warming is a SCAM in the barest sense. I also treasure our environment and favor keeping it clean. I do NOT think CO2 is a pollutant and think Al Gore is a duplicitous bastard. However, were he to say, "hey everybody, we've got to stop polluting our oceans with chemicals and garbage!" I would agree with him.

Loving the environment does not justify making up a fairy tale and trying to ram it down everyone's throat so you can grab millions of dollars and overwhelming global influence! The ends do not justify the means, contrary to Leftist dogma.

This scam represents a huge degeneration of both political and scientific discourse in the West. To any passionate proponents of this nonsense, I urge you to look into it deeper and consider more carefully whether the debate is truly "over" as the preeminent snake oil salesman of our time would have you believe.

hmm I believe you have no idea what you're talking about

First of all, there is no global warming. And second of all, I am not for polluting the planet.

I am just not in favor of spending billions and billions of dollars on a fraud called global warming. Global warming scientists have been caught red handed trying fabricate their claim. Al Gore and his cronies are one big scam. And its time for Europe to wake up and smell the coffee. Other than that, I will do my part to not pollute this planet.

'First of all, there is no global warming'

Can you prove that? Can cause really have no effect?

That the Earth is growing warmer is a fact. It gets warmer and colder in cycles, which is why we have mini ice ages every 20,000 or so years, and great cooling every 100,000 years.

The melt-offs are as cyclical as the cold. However, the current hysteria is NOT deserved. Yes, the polar caps will melt. There may be some small rise in the levels of the oceans, we may experience less wetland and less fresh water run off. These things have happened before and will happen again. The rise is water levels will come from thermal expansion (when water gets warmer, it takes up more space) however, there won't be a deluge. Ice is not as dense as water, melt water will take less room than the ice does.

If you want to know a piece of evidence that discounts our CO2 emissions as the cause (what the global warming experts say is true) then you can say that the true correlation between a hotter planet and CO2 lies with solar winds. You see, it takes ions to form clouds. In periods of greater solar activity, the ions are blown away from the planet and don't help to generate cloud cover in the atmosphere. Less clouds = more direct light from the sun = more heat. That heat warms the oceans and forests, and on our best day we can't compete with the exhalations of CO2 from these sources. I won't even mention geothermal activity.

Want to see proof for yourself? Go take a close look at the numbers that form the chart Al Gore uses in his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". While I admire his passion, the numbers are far more interesting than that first glance allows. You see, the C02 levels follow the warming trends - yes, FOLLOW. The CO2 levels rise AFTER the heat. Then you can take a look at the relationship between solar activity and warming trends on the Earth. The correlation is staggering.

Should we pay attention to our planet and try to reduce our pollutants? Absolutely. But this hysteria means that Global Warming is the 'cause de jour' and we're spending a lot of research money in fewer areas. We can't get better budgets for finding near-earth objects, for instance.

Human beings are adaptable. We have lived on a warmer earth, we adapted to ice ages, and we will learn to live in warm ones -- and this will happen. It is inevitable; we can't control the Earth's orbit nor solar activity.

I was a global warming koolade drinker up until last year. All of these resrearches have been so emphatic about global warming that I believed them and trusted their research. But my gut told me that our earth has always changed and always will change. I often wondered why the earth changed when man wasn't even on it yet. I often wondered why the pro global warming people said "the debate is over. NO more debate". Now I know. Those emails have shed light into this huge scam of global warming (Now they want to call it climate change).

Coach TJ, thanks for the info. My gut was right. Climate always changes. It gets cold, it gets hot. Lets just use some common sense and do the best to control unnecessary pollution. But I say "NO" to soending billions of dollars on this scam called global warming, oops, I mean climate change.

'Human beings are adaptable. We have lived on a warmer earth, we adapted to ice ages, and we will learn to live in warm ones -- and this will happen. It is inevitable; we can't control the Earth's orbit nor solar activity.'

How many people were on earth in the last ice age? People would mainly adapt to major changes by dying.

Don't worry anyway, none of the targets set for CO2 reduction at all those conferences will ever be met (or any real attempt to attain them made) so you will get your way!

ukathleticscoach wrote:

How many people were on earth in the last ice age? People would mainly adapt to major changes by dying.

What does this have to do with whether or not people cause warming (which they don't)? The climate has ALWAYS changed. What makes you think we can stop it from happening? What proof do you have that warmer climate wouldn't create a world that was easier to live in?

Keep changing you name - you will still be the same jerk. Now that is changing the subject.

Your argument is just politician speak ie refusing to answer my original question.

Saying the climate has always changed does not matter. The rate of change can still be increased by man. Back to cause & effect. Are you defying the laws of physics by saying there can be cause without effect, or that you do not care. The population of man on earth is geared to how the current climate is and is not going to be benefit from changing to quickly

My main argument however, is not this. It is that chopping down half the world trees, people concreting over their garden, using up the earths energy resources too quickly etc; it's all bad. Even if all this had no impact on the earths temperature, doing the things which global warming lobbysists suggest would still benefit us and the worlds fauna & flora

Just admit you really don't give a toss, or make up which side you are really on and don't hide behind your anti left or anti liberal or whatever bull.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Are you defying the laws of physics by saying there can be cause without effect ...

What cause are you talking about? Half the world's trees cut down? That hasn't happened. What energy resources have we used up? If what you say about the world's population is true, it would appear that a warmer planet causes population growth. What proof do you have that people have affected climate change?

Looks to me like you're making a bunch of assertions without any facts to back them up. BTW, BRM is the only name I use. As far as what side I'm on, I'm on the side of science and facts. What side are you on?