Global Warming... Bullshite!?!?!?!

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Exotic_D, May 29, 2003.

  1. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    Well, i had to post this because my uncle proved to me last night how stupid and ignorant the human animal truly is. Our conversation began light-heartedly and turned down right ugly. He is a junk scientist (as i like to call them), who believes that it's, as he so non-eloquently put it "them damn tree huggers" that create all this "spooky" information about the degradation of ecosystems, species extinction, air/water/food pollution and oh yeah that little thing called "global warming".

    He reiterated that is was total "bullshite" i was talking and that i was too young to understand how life truly works (he's german... he was 5 yrs old when Hitler began his reign of terror... nuff said). Personally, my uncle lost ALL of my respect last night, i thought he would agree with me that the preservation of our planet is the most crucial endeavour we as a species have. Nope, he said once again, that i was talking through my ass and didn't have an interpreter... what an idiot... God, he really is just a brainwashed consumer.. Big brother should be proud of his creation of the generations before mine... pretty much a big waste of space, if anyone is asking...

    yes, my uncle is borderline retarded, if i had my way, i'd have him committed, unfortunately, i would have to do the same with his entire generation, he is not alone in his ignorance. Millions of people have adopted this "can't be" attitude over the course of several industrialized decades, history will in fact dictate our future in this case. This is the very same generation(s) (mindset if you will) who believed child slave labour and dumping human waste in waterways was not only well within their god-given rights...but also, very logical.

    for those of you who believe that our world is "ok", that we are sufficiently protecting our natural resources, we have complete control over our Earth's degradation and that we have no reason to be afraid of environmental catastrophes such as Exxon and the fact that 1/3 of our fresh water is deemed "not suitable" for human consumption, BEWARE, what you believe does not necessarily make it true...

    you are what you think but most importantly you are what you ingest it toxic water, food or air, the fact remains, you are human and therefore will eventually be destroyed by these negative environmental factors.

    here is a little slice of "reality" for those of you who refuse to believe in the absolute necessity for our species to rectify "NOW, not later" the more acute dilemmas we face. The sustenance of our planet and the preservation of our species will be rendered futile, if we do not ACCEPT the current level of destruction and CONCUR to change our wicked ways in the extremely near future, i can even say NOW is the time but who would believe me? Who would care?

    morons unite if you must... and edify yourselves... those who are educated on the subject but have no idea what to do, talk about the situation we face as a species to anyone who will listen. What we will be subjected to is a far greater threat than racial cleansing and class division, a global environmental catastrophy is imminent. Remember, air/water and food pollution does not care who or where you are, it is indiscriminate, it cares only for your total annihilation.

    the problems our grandparents and parents faced are not comparable to what we face today... the chemical compounds found in our air/food and water today were not present in 1905 (or 1955 for that matter), the toxins in our human bodies from factory emissions either... but most importantly the destruction of our precious ozone layer (Non-restorative i might add).

    It has never been as obvious as today, icecaps melting and water levels rising are truly nothing to worry about, when you consider all the pollutants WE have systematically introduced into our air. Our degenerating air quality is no laughing matter, yet congress and governmental bodies appear to be nonchalant about the whole issue. Is that why Bush's administration dismantles a new enviro law on virtually a daily basis?



    Half U.S. Climate Warming Due to Land Use Changes

    COLLEGE PARK, Maryland, May 28, 2003 (ENS) - The growth of cities and industrial agriculture is responsible for more of the rise in temperature across the United States than scientists previously believed, according to a new study by scientists at the University of Maryland. They found that land use changes may account for up to half of the observed surface global warming.

    Meteorologists Dr. Eugenia Kalnay and Dr. Ming Cai have found evidence that the observed temperature increase of 0.13 degrees Celsius (.234 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 50 years has been influenced by changes in land use.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bridge Registered Senior Member

    Global warming is a political scam

    First, the scientific evidence for a case of human induced global warming is woefully lacking. Humans are responsible for pumping approximately some 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the biosphere every year versus around 200 billion for nature, so even if carbon dioxide is causing global warming you're focusing on the wrong contributor.

    Secondly, it takes thousands of years for the earth to cycle through its historical maximum mean temperature, and thousands more for it to retreat to its minimum. Since basically all we have is limited records of temperature and rainfall for perhaps the last 200 years in certain geographic locations, we basically can't see the forest for the trees.

    Does that mean reducing air pollution, water pollution and clear cutting in the Amazon basin is a bad idea? Heck no. I favor reducing all those things. I just think a few political groups shouting that global warming is a reality when in fact it's BS, is something we should all be allowed to judge on evidence. Where is the hard data to support your position?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately for you two there is actually evidence that global warming has been occurring. Try reading Nature: there were some very scary articles over the last few months about very conclusive evidence of global warming, it seem weather records and phenology don’t lie and that the earth has been getting steady warmer over the last century. What is not agreed apone is what the side effects will be and how drastic and how long we have tell things are very noticeably @#$%ed up.

    If anything global warming is a ploy created by scientist, for scientist, in the hope of getting people to listen to them... strangely it is not working.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I was not saying global warming was cause by us or that it will be very bad. I was just announcing that evidence supports that it is happening be it natural or not, and that what it means for us in the short and long term is not agreed apone. All that can be said for sure is that things are changing.
  8. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    this truly sux... it's so logical yet so unsound... i want to believe it is a blatant lie.. but my instinct or humanity tells me different...

    one thing i have learned from my years of working in the health industry (had to quit cause i was on the verge of a nervous breakdown... the information i have had to sift through was too discouraging) is scientists are not only opportunistic liars they are also corporate sluts... well, the ones i have met in my lifetime are... did you know that most scientific grants are now being rated on a economic sliding scale? what this means in accounting terms is "if you can prove this will help the general public, without contributing to the gross national product, you won't get your money"

    i have worked alongside some serious scientific deviants... where life forms in general are exploited to the maximum, and finding cures is not necessarily the ultimate goal (sick people generate more operating costs, thus increasing budget projections... thus increasing govt funding... healthy people don't buy pharmaceuticals or require chemotherapy treatments at thousands of dollars per cycle...u do the math)... science is basically owned and operated by corporate conglomerates and supported by government bureaucracy, everyone wants a kickback... pharma co's like Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, Pfizer etc... are one of the worst enviro polluters of our day... pulp & paper plants destroy our air while these idiots destroy our water and soil... bunch of cheeky hedonistic bastards...

    if you don't believe me... look in any medical journal and witness with your own eyes how a team of scientists develop a new pharma product or theory, firstly, you need serious cashflow (corporate funding), then you need serious marketing capabilities (corporate media), finally you need human guinea pigs to test it on (any unsuspecting human who has a family doctor or reads a bloody newspaper will do)... problem with this little 1,2,3 is the scientific data is corrupt... biased and no longer for the "betterment of human existence" but for the "exploitation of" it... which leads me to believe the big business of scientific misinformation is an out of control freight train, heading straight for the "bridge out" sign up ahead... and guess who the passengers are?

    consumerism fuels this human society we have formed and issues such as global warming have their own gurus who without regard for the "facts" desire to alarm people... just as the junk scientists refuse to entertain the idea... some say there is NO viable data... yet they still want to warn people of the impending doom... some say they truly do not comprehend what the effects could possibly be... yet they don't see how classic hollywood this is... i have also learned over the years, working with scientists, that the more people who believe something to be true without substantiating evidence the more likely it is not the truth... with that said... does it then prove to be untrue? nope... unfortunately, we don't really know either way...

    my last point on this is... who cares if they don't have scientific data? are you going to argue that the millions of pounds of toxic chemical compounds floating in our atmosphere due to our ignorance and stupidity is NOT at some point going to kill us? ok could be hundreds of years could be a couple... but shouldn't we at least be examining this and regulating it somehow?

    you are what you ingest... and i don't know about you, but the last time i walked in the forest, i actually breathed deeply, it was fresh, invigorating oxygen rich air... but when i went to work this morning i coughed and choked from the bus stop to my office front door... and as i walked past the cigarette smokers and held my breath, i concluded they wouldn't kill me before my busride to work did...

  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Ya there is no physical way the mined oil will be able to supply are demand between 2020-2030! We need to start using alternative fuels like Ethanol, methanol or hydrogen (I proffer the first) the economical crisis at the end of hydrocarbon man might be a real bitch! So if anything we need to changer are habits for our energy future at the very lest, Of course any alternative fuel would be benign environmentally (compare to oil) so it would be killing 2 birds with one stone what a deal!
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    yes very true… are rates of methane and NO2 production is probable doing more damage. Still modern evidence does support that world climate is heating up so I don’t know what your saying about it all being false.
  11. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member


    Andre... i had to quote you... just because i find your "be sure to be right first" comment really kinda silly... no offense but hey... how can you truly be proven right when there are individuals who will stop at nothing to prove you wrong? or who won't even entertain your idea because it is not what they want to hear? i believe, as history often reminds us, until we know for sure, we really don't know... we should however be putting massive resources into proving or disproving this theory once and for all... but i will reiterate... science is corrupt... just like govt...

    is the survival of our species about being right or wrong? is the preservation of our planet about who's telling the truth and who's lying? the strongest opposition to the global warming theory, is not by in large scientists, but is presented primarily by industry lobbyists like General Electric and Walden-Mott Corp., which is based on "A" version (their version) of scientific data that relies heavily on media relations and corporate profit margins... this obviously leads me to believe something is up, not you? who, prithee, ensures these people are "right"? they are permitted to present their unsupported theories to the public indiscriminately...

    the leading contributors to air pollution are the very groups designated to provide the public with the science and information that disproves global warming and ozone deterioration... does this lead you to believe it is impossible or improbable? based on what "they" deem fact or fiction? i always examine the board of directors of any formed "scientific" advisory committee... if you see lots of big names like John Doe, VP, AOL Representing Partner and John Doh, Assistant Director of Programming, Fox News, then you "should" know something is up...

    obviously this is an example... but i have seen it before... board of directors tend to have a vested interest in what they are representing... so by definition these committees and boards could potentially be corrupt from their inception... kinda like voting for Gore and Bush gets in cause he's the one "they" need in the Whitehouse to go to war... yada yada yada

    if you examine closesly the board of directors of the majority of these formed "anti-environment" groups who lobby for more clear cutting, more fossil fuel burning and less accountability, you will see how truly ruthless big business is... global warming or not, you have to admit, if we can't trust our politicians to provide us with accurate truthful information on science (like we ever could before, but i digress) then how can we trust the scientists who are on their payroll?

  12. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    ok wait a minute.. don't tell me you just went there? are you now attempting to perpetuate that "acid rain" is a scientific myth or something? i certainly hope not... because all you will have to do is check out:

    1 NAL Call. No.: 450 N42
    Absorption of atmospheric NO2 by spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.)
    trees. I. NO2 influx and its correlation with nitrate reduction.
    Thoene, B.; Schroder, P.; Papen, H.; Egger, A.; Rennenberg, H.
    Cambridge : Cambridge University Press; 1991 Apr.
    The New phytologist v. 117 (4): p. 575-585; 1991 Apr. Includes

    Language: English

    Descriptors: Picea abies; Air pollution; Nitrogen dioxide;
    Phytotoxicity; Absorption; Nitrate reductase; Enzyme activity;

    2 NAL Call. No.: QD1.A45
    Acid deposition: acidification of the environment.
    Elder, F.C.
    Washington, D.C. : The Society; 1992.
    ACS Symposium series - American Chemical Society (483): p. 36-63;
    1992. In the series analytic: The science of global change: the
    impact of human activities on the environment / edited by D.A.
    Dunnette and R.J. O'Brien. Includes references.

    Language: English

    Descriptors: U.S.A.; Acid deposition; Environment; Pollution

    3 NAL Call. No.: SD13.C35
    Acid deposition alters red spruce physiology: laboratory studies
    support field observations.
    McLaughlin, S.B.; Tjoelker, M.G.; Roy, W.K.
    Ottawa, Ont. : National Research Council of Canada; 1993 Mar.
    Canadian journal of forest research; Revue canadienne de
    recherche forestiere v. 23 (3): p. 380-386; 1993 Mar. Includes

    Language: English

    Descriptors: Picea rubens; Seedlings; Acid rain; Mists; Acidity;
    Simulation; Seedling growth; Respiration; Photosynthesis;
    Nutrient content; Calcium; Magnesium; Rooting depth; Altitude

    Abstract: Two-year-old red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) seedlings
    were grown in a poorly buffered soil from a high-elevation site
    in the Great Smoky Mountains and exposed for 16 weeks to acid
    mist and rain chemically similar to that occurring at high-
    elevation sites in the southern Appalachian Mountains.
    Measurements of seedling growth, root distribution, saturated net
    photosynthesis, dark respiration, and nutrient content were made
    to test the hypothesis that acid deposition had caused reductions
    in the carbon economy noted at high-elevation sites in previous
    field studies. The role of base cation depletion in these changes
    was examined by evaluating soil amendments of Ca, Mg, or Ca plus
    Mg. Acidified rain and mist reduced (i) the apparent carbon
    economy of foliage, (ii) seedling growth, and (iii) rooting depth
    in these controlled greenhouse studies. Changes in gas exchange
    physiology paralleled responses observed for sapling trees in the
    field with increasing elevation and included both reduced net
    photosynthesis and increased dark respiration. Calcium deficiency
    induced by acid deposition is apparently an important mechanism
    underlying physiological responses of red spruce previously
    observed in the field. Calcium addition to soil partially reduced
    the effects of acid deposition, but observed responses suggest
    that both foliar- and soil-driven reactions are involved. Changes
    in carbon metabolism associated with reduced Ca availability,
    when high levels of acid deposition are superimposed on poorly
    buffered soils, support the inferential association of acid
    deposition with growth decline of mature red spruce in high-
    elevation forests of the Appalachian Mountains.

  13. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    that was somewhat off topic but hey... it's my thread i can do what i want with it... i just stuck that in because it appears that you are only reachable via the "proven scientific data" medium... so... edify yourself... before you dismiss theories pertaining to survival of your species... no one really knows the long term effects acid rain will have on our already deteriorating environment nor do we fully comprehend the repercussions of blasting tons of sulphur dioxide into our atmosphere from paper and pulp plants... do we?

  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    and your point is?
  15. DigitalPhalanges Registered Member

    Toasty in here?

    Just wanted to chime in and point out that Global Warming is generally acknowledged by the anthropological community as a natural phenomenon which coincides with the ending of an Ice Age (which we happen to be in at this moment). An Ice Age is signified by the prescence of ANY summer ice formations at the poles.

    So when the Ice Age is finally over there will be quite a bit less landmass to live on and there will be a great increase in CO2 as the ice caps are each storing massive quantities of CO2 within the ice (as that is one of the distiguishing characteristics of polar ice).

    Modern agriculture is (this is a fact) - causing the desertification of millions of acres of cropland across the globe. This land looses its ability to retain and purify sufficient quantities of water to support the local ecosystem. Thus huge deserts are being created over what was not long ago fertile prairie and forestland. I will allow you to draw your own conclusions as to the long term affect this will have on us as a species.

    I would also like to point out that 10,000 years ago north Africa was a tropical jungle. That land was heavily logged and now it is a... yes you guessed it, it sadly is a big desert. The only thing that can heal a desert as of yet is its emersion under a body of water for many many years while sediment forms a new rudimentary soil layers.

    So, these deserts we are manufacturing with our envirormental naivete will be here during a time when our decendants are trying to survive in a time of increased temperatures and shrunken landmasses.

    Sorry, I think I started to ramble a bit there. Really I just wanted to point out that Global Warming is a natural process and that there are better things to focus your enviromental rage upon.

    Love to yall,

  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Sorry I haven't read it all but wanted to note:

    The issue isn't really "is there global warming". Hell I'll concede I believe I've heard convincing arguments. I think it issue is "did humans cause the globe to warm up?". I don't think that link can even remotely established. Sure you can find correlations with chemical levels, but how can you establishe them to be causal with no complete and valid model of the system? I doubt that can be done in a compelling manner.
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member


    Well then you obviously have not been reading the articles I have. Many studies had p-values below 5% so I would say there at lest 1/20 chance that its not happening.
    Last edited: May 31, 2003
  18. Exotic_D Don't bother-Don't care Registered Senior Member

    thanks for the informative info.. it's awfully refreshing... however... if this is occuring naturally as you said then by definition we are going to die from this phenomenon eventually anyways, correct? and i agree.. we do have more pressing issues facing us... soil, water and food contamination by the industries who consider "human endangerment" a part of doing business... it's not only normal and natural that they are poisoning us... it's legal!

    species extinction due to consumerism i.e. salmon/cod stocks, U.S army sonar testing and it's deadly effects on marine mammals... unsustainable development of natural resources and land mass i.e. destruction of ecosystems due to waste and overremoval of natural resources i.e. oil/natural gas, pollution of our waterways due to dumping... refusal to use safer methods of technology i.e. solar/wind power, hydrogen vehicles etc... dismantling of the Constitution i.e. the new Patriot Act and Homeland Security office...

    these issues are directly affecting each and every human being on this planet today... whether they know and accept that fact is not my concern... edifying is however... the empire that Bush desires is real for him... that everything will be stamped "made in america" is not a false hope or a psychopath's delusional dreams of grandure... it is a prediction from the Bush administration... they are forewarning us and we are not taking them seriously... they want Iran now... i could have told you that when they decided to dust Iraq... i must be clairvoyant or something...

  19. DigitalPhalanges Registered Member

    Couldn't be clairvoyance... could it?

    Personally I do not think that the phenomenon of Global Warming is life threatening by itself. However combined with all the nasty things humans are doing, I wouldn't be surprised if the planet will be incapable of supporting a large population of anything much larger then a cat for about a 100k years. A mere moment in the scheme of things but a significant period of time for a social species such as ourselves. I estimate this as beginning shortly after the caps are done melting. This is all dependent on whether or not we are free to pursue alternative means of living. This is being decided by the actions of the major governments and the inactions of the people of the world. I speak especially of the people of the U.S. of which I am one.

    On a local level we need to push our cities and then states to pass resolutions against the Patriot Act. Also we need to warn congress that should they allow the Patriot Act 2 to pass they will be out of jobs and all of our livelyhoods in this country will be in jeopardy.

    Most importantly there is a need to form strong bonds within your community so that there is trust amonst neighbors. Developing the skill nessassry to survive in a world without money is also important (I do not say this because I think there will be no money, I just think it is a good idea) and if you don't see the need then don't worry about it. Just sit back and change the channel.

    "I act not only for my immediate benifit I act for the benifit of my decendants. Expand your attention span beyond your own life and you will have discovered what it will always mean to keep being human." - Hiroshima Reason

    Here is a funny little piece of information for you all. The difference between a poor community and a rich one is this: Of every dollar spent in the poor community only $.10 recirculates throughout the community, In a rich community every dollar spent makes its way through that community an average of ten times before it is degraded to less then $1.00.

    Think for yourself. You are incapable of doing this if you are an avid consumer of television.
    "TV Programs." - note, this is a statement.

    End Mutation.

    Love is what you need,

  20. Essan Unknown entity Registered Senior Member

    For the past 10,000 years the earth has experienced a relatively stable climate - this stability may well be one reason for the sudden emergence of human civilisation.

    But even within this period there has been constant slow variations in the global climate - most famously with the 'Little Ice Age'.

    Accurate climate measurements have only been made for the past 150 or so years.

    The only surprise would be if we found that there had been no climate change over the past 150 years. If that happened than I really would believe in an anthropogenic cause!

    And anyway, taking the bigger picture, it's all a total irrelevance. There's absolutely nothing that humans can do that will affect the long term viability of the planet Earth to sustain life. How vain we are to think that we - or anything we do really matters. Maybe in 10 million years time some truely intelligent species will evolve?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    For the past sever million years the earth has had brief Ice and Hot ages every couple of 10,000 years or so, so it not illogical to assume we will have another again with the next 1-2 dozen thousand years.
  22. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    As an Astronomer, I would like to offer an observation:

    It has been known for some time that Global Warming is occuring on Mars. At first, this was thought to be caused by Martian ice caps melting and releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, until new images from the Mars Orbital Camera revealed that the ice caps are mostly water ice. Since their is no active volcanism on Mars or any other phenomenon causing increased CO2 on Mars, the only factor in Marian weather which can possibly cause global Warming which we know if, is increased solar activity.

    Furthermore, if increased solar activity is causing global warming, then global warming should be found in some mannor on EVERY object in the solar system. However, their is one standard of proof which greatly interests me. Short period comets, which reside in our inner solar system, should be greatly effected, as increased solar activity (and thus increased solar winds) should make the tails more spectacular and the nuclei more luminous.

    To be fair, not every object however, will be testable for the hypothesis. Jupiter radiates as much energy as it recieves from the Sun and it's weather is not as influenced by solar activity.
  23. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    The moon has no atmosphere, and no weather phenomenon which can be tested for this hypothesis.

Share This Page