[penstemo]

swansont, on 31 July 2010 - 01:26 PM, said:

"Global warming is a natural cycle" is a flawed argument. Even it is natural, this does not somehow explain away the issue or shield it from scientific inquiry. We should still be able to investigate the nature and source of the energy imbalance that causes temperatures to increase (or decrease). If you want to make that argument, then have a pile of scientific papers which have done that, and identified the energy source(s). The problem is that scientists have done these studies, and natural variations do not account for the warming.

If natural variations don't account for the warming then what does?

[iNow]

penstemo, on 29 October 2011 - 01:51 AM, said:

If natural variations don't account for the warming then what does?

Natural variations account for quite a lot of the dynamics of our climate. However, there has been a very significant upward trend in global average annual temperatures in the recent past when compared to the centuries and millenia before, and that trend cannot be explained by natural variations alone. The evidence of natural variations cannot alone account for either the magnitude or velocity of change we are presently experiencing.

When you look at the evidence available, and when you review the conclusions of the thousands of people who study this as their life work, and when you review the research and data which has accumulated in this domain of study for over four decades, and when you couple that with well founded and understood principles of basic physics and chemistry, the answer is clear and irrefutable by any rational well-informed mind.

Human activity accounts for the recent warming trend, specifically via the manner in which we remove carbon deposits from the ground and burn them in massive amounts, ultimately releasing a ridiculous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere which wasn't there before. That CO2 then increases the greenhouse effect, ultimately explaining the increasing trend in average annual global temperature.

This post has been edited by iNow: 29 October 2011 - 03:24 AM

[kitkat]

iNow, on 29 October 2011 - 03:19 AM, said:

Natural variations account for quite a lot of the dynamics of our climate. However, there has been a very significant upward trend in global average annual temperatures in the recent past when compared to the centuries and millenia before, and that trend cannot be explained by natural variations alone. The evidence of natural variations cannot alone account for either the magnitude or velocity of change we are presently experiencing.

When you look at the evidence available, and when you review the conclusions of the thousands of people who study this as their life work, and when you review the research and data which has accumulated in this domain of study for over four decades, and when you couple that with well founded and understood principles of basic physics and chemistry, the answer is clear and irrefutable by any rational well-informed mind.

Human activity accounts for the recent warming trend, specifically via the manner in which we remove carbon deposits from the ground and burn them in massive amounts, ultimately releasing a ridiculous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere which wasn't there before. That CO2 then increases the greenhouse effect, ultimately explaining the increasing trend in average annual global temperature.

So how to you change this when oil is going to be used until we get the last drop out of earth? How do we change this when big rich corporations influence laws that allow them to continue exploiting the earth by destroying all ecosystems?

[iNow]

Politics and economics don't change any of that. Those are facts, regardless of what oil companies and governments do. As for changing politics and influence, that can only be done by an informed, energized, and active populace. In short, it's not "them" that's the problem. It's "us." Read, learn, discuss... act.

That's how you change the concerns you raise.

[questionposter]

ParanoiA, on 27 July 2010 - 06:15 PM, said:

Unless I'm mistaken, global warming isn't threatening the existence of human kind, but rather the existence of some kinds of humans.

I would say that blobal warming does not mean the end of the human race, especially with all the technology we have. All it means is we will live in a much more hostile world in the future.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 4 November 2011 - 02:36 AM

[kitkat]

iNow, on 4 November 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:

Politics and economics don't change any of that. Those are facts, regardless of what oil companies and governments do. As for changing politics and influence, that can only be done by an informed, energized, and active populace. In short, it's not "them" that's the problem. It's "us." Read, learn, discuss... act.

That's how you change the concerns you raise.

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment? The public is informed of conflicting information all of the time on this subject and it is no wonder that half can't agree with the other half of what is real or not. All you have to do is follow the funding trail of money to observe that we do not always get the truth, especially at election time for the active populace to "act" or not act.

iNow, on 4 November 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:

Politics and economics don't change any of that. Those are facts, regardless of what oil companies and governments do. As for changing politics and influence, that can only be done by an informed, energized, and active populace. In short, it's not "them" that's the problem. It's "us." Read, learn, discuss... act.

That's how you change the concerns you raise.

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment? The public is informed of conflicting information all of the time on this subject and it is no wonder that half can't agree with the other half of what is real or not. All you have to do is follow the funding trail of money to observe that we do not always get the truth, especially at election time for the active populace to "act" or not act.

[iNow]

kitkat, on 15 November 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:

What is it like $22 Billion paid by tax payors to support scientists and their research and you expect "us" to read, learn, discuss...act per your comment?

Correct. That is precisely what I expect from people who wish to change the world in which they live. Whether for better or worse, those changes will come only after people read, learn, discuss, and act. Sitting on your ass whining and taking on a victim mindset will not be what it takes to carry you forward and accomplish your goals. Failure to realize this is perhaps part of the problem.

This post has been edited by iNow: 15 November 2011 - 04:40 PM

[johnny196775]

factories for your cars and ipods is ganna kill us all. technology is to blame. i hate to say it.

This post has been edited by johnny196775: 24 November 2011 - 03:36 AM

[Phi for All]

johnny196775, on 24 November 2011 - 03:32 AM, said:

factories for your cars and ipods is ganna kill us all. technology is to blame. i hate to say it.

I would say it's the way the technology is used that is to blame. We make things affordable on the front end and then pay the consequences on the back end. We've wasted a lot of resources on inefficient convenience.

Technology also helped make us aware of the problem, so it's not all bad. It will most likely play a great part in helping to deal with it, too.