You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
So whats up with the global warming talk?
- Thread starter davidjr74
- Start date
I think you have to remember a few facts here about the current world:
1) Only recently have people been able to globally collaborate using internet, and satellites. This is only about 50 years young, so in reality, a lot of people are "connecting the dots" but then the question is what if we had these stuff for the past 2000 years? Would the same conclusions be drawn?
2) Companies that offer consumer products are usually the ones talking the most about global warming. I saw a commercial the other day about Identity Theft insurance. Now, what they say is true, but they pretend like it's happening to a lot of people when in reality, it happens to less than 1% of people. With that said, companies are now talking about "Going Green" a cool slogan that the fat cats made up while thinking of a great sales pitch (btw, I have no idea who coined the term). With that said, a lot of companies are feeding into the fear and making you think that you're "saving the world" when in reality you pay about 3% more for products that offer "green service." For example, my gym has a "Going Green" slogan and they use products that are "green" but I saw them pour from a bottle that used chemicals that are just like any other products out there.
So just remember, when someone talks about "global warming" think about what they're saying. Are they just some random tree-hugging hippie who ate too much "special" brownies? Or is it a company trying to sell you a product or make you donate money of some form?
EDIT: The simple fact remains though that the average Joe of today's world has more things than someone of the same thing 100 years ago. With that said, the average Joe wastes a lot more than what the same years ago; which in turn means you're going to waste a lot more.
1) Only recently have people been able to globally collaborate using internet, and satellites. This is only about 50 years young, so in reality, a lot of people are "connecting the dots" but then the question is what if we had these stuff for the past 2000 years? Would the same conclusions be drawn?
2) Companies that offer consumer products are usually the ones talking the most about global warming. I saw a commercial the other day about Identity Theft insurance. Now, what they say is true, but they pretend like it's happening to a lot of people when in reality, it happens to less than 1% of people. With that said, companies are now talking about "Going Green" a cool slogan that the fat cats made up while thinking of a great sales pitch (btw, I have no idea who coined the term). With that said, a lot of companies are feeding into the fear and making you think that you're "saving the world" when in reality you pay about 3% more for products that offer "green service." For example, my gym has a "Going Green" slogan and they use products that are "green" but I saw them pour from a bottle that used chemicals that are just like any other products out there.
So just remember, when someone talks about "global warming" think about what they're saying. Are they just some random tree-hugging hippie who ate too much "special" brownies? Or is it a company trying to sell you a product or make you donate money of some form?
EDIT: The simple fact remains though that the average Joe of today's world has more things than someone of the same thing 100 years ago. With that said, the average Joe wastes a lot more than what the same years ago; which in turn means you're going to waste a lot more.
Last edited:
1) Only recently have people been able to globally collaborate using internet, and satellites. This is only about 50 years young, so in reality, a lot of people are "connecting the dots" but then the question is what if we had these stuff for the past 2000 years? Would the same conclusions be drawn?
.
We do have this data from tree rings, the world only started heating up at such a dramatic rate, a rate never seen before in human times, over the last 20 years.
If we were to stop using our cars, slow down industrialisation and take all measures required to slow down the process then the global economy would collapse on an unimaginable scale which is why you have various corrupt politicians and large corporations trying to discredit climate change.
We do have this data from tree rings, the world only started heating up at such a dramatic rate, a rate never seen before in human times, over the last 20 years.
If we were to stop using our cars, slow down industrialisation and take all measures required to slow down the process then the global economy would collapse on an unimaginable scale which is why you have various corrupt politicians and large corporations trying to discredit climate change.
A few hundred years ago, Joe couldn't tell Jane about tree rings unless they lived a few miles from each other. The fact is, some guy can cut a tree and look at tree rings and everyone would be able to read about it when he posts it online.
Also, about the large corporations. I for one believe that such a large corporation survives not politically, but by consumers buying the products. So auto manufacturers don't have a secret hidden agenda to warm up the world and cause everyone to die in a tub of heat and CO2. The fact is, people buys products, so when a lot of automakers are starting to build "environmentally safe" cars. I quote that because they really aren't, but people just buy it anyways because they want to "save the world" but fail to understand what they're buying.
I think politics and science often don't mix well. The tree ring data are controversial as there are other data that has shown warmer periods earlier. I'm not saying human made global warming isn't the case, I'm just saying, the way the politicians portray it isn't necessarily right. I think it's been taken way out of proportion and we need scientists to explor all the alternative hypothesis and not just focus on the CO2 hypothesis as most of them do now. When politics and public opinion gets mixed with science the results can be devastating, if you find data that supports another hypothesis than the CO2 hypothesis, you probably wouldn't publish it because you'd get lynched, not only by the scientific community but by all sorts of people, which is why politics and science don't mix.
Here's an even more valid question: Exactly who are the experts? I mean people say, "scientists" but yet give no clear definition of who that is. Basically anyone can be an expert. Heck, it's even proven here on the forum that any Joe can come on and say, "Hey, I have a phd, and this is how you lose weight." As a matter of fact, weightloss books are highest selling products, and why? Because nearly every book you pick up somehow has some dude with "phd" and suddenly everyone listens to him.
The same thing can be said about global warming. Some dude with a "phd" comes on says, "This is why." And people agree with him and just say, "Oh yeah, let's buy what that guy says we should."
The same thing can be said about global warming. Some dude with a "phd" comes on says, "This is why." And people agree with him and just say, "Oh yeah, let's buy what that guy says we should."
The fact you ask who the experts are just makes me wonder if you've actually looked into the issue at all. It's not some guy with a PHD, it thousands of groups, institutions, universities and governments from across the globe who have all come to the same conclusion. It's generally just China and the US, the world’s two major polluters that are throwing up doubt (and I mean doubt, not counter-evidence)
Here is the website for our government's weather service funded by the ministry of defence; they have lots of research and data on there
The arguement against climate change is weaker than that against evolution, and it's odd how it seems to be the same bunch of conservative republicans that are questioning new research
Here is the website for our government's weather service funded by the ministry of defence; they have lots of research and data on there
The arguement against climate change is weaker than that against evolution, and it's odd how it seems to be the same bunch of conservative republicans that are questioning new research
The fact you ask who the experts are just makes me wonder if you've actually looked into the issue at all. It's not some guy with a PHD, it thousands of groups, institutions, universities and governments from across the globe who have all come to the same conclusion. It's generally just China and the US, the world’s two major polluters that are throwing up doubt (and I mean doubt, not counter-evidence)
Here is the website for our government's weather service funded by the ministry of defence; they have lots of research and data on there
The arguement against climate change is weaker than that against evolution, and it's odd how it seems to be the same bunch of conservative republicans that are questioning new research
And that's the problem, you've got all these big groups with fancy names all saying the same thing, so everyone believes it. IMO, it is very dangerous. There is actually a committee dedicated to going through the IPCC reports and adding on the research papers that the IPCC has ignored. And there are scientists that have proposed alternative hypothesis (though some of these aren't mutually exclusive with the CO2 hypothesis) but they don't get much attention, which is a problem. Why doesn't the world want to know all sides of the climate change?
And have you read about the "climate watergate" thingy? the emails that were leaked about how many leading scientists were conspiring to keep "climate doubters" out of the peer reviews journals?
I haven't followed it too much, but if anything of what they say about those mails is true, then there's a real problem going on.
The problem is that there are a few of those 'some guy with a PHD' types out there who are prepared to take a back handed payment from large companies to highlight 'possible' alternatives or to suggest that as research is incomplete it shouldn't be acted on.
All research groups, government back or independent have come to the same conclusions and there is a view that if action is delayed any further by people saying more research is needed then we have reached a tipping point which we can't come back from.
The thing is you can always say that more research is needed, there will never be an end for research being desirable but there needs to be a line drawn where people start to accept and while the world's economy relys so heavily on industrialisation and development then there will always be groups out there that want to hold off action until their pockets are as lined as possible.
They pray on doubt and that's what they're feeding people.
All research groups, government back or independent have come to the same conclusions and there is a view that if action is delayed any further by people saying more research is needed then we have reached a tipping point which we can't come back from.
The thing is you can always say that more research is needed, there will never be an end for research being desirable but there needs to be a line drawn where people start to accept and while the world's economy relys so heavily on industrialisation and development then there will always be groups out there that want to hold off action until their pockets are as lined as possible.
They pray on doubt and that's what they're feeding people.
BBC iPlayer - Earth: The Climate Wars: Fightback
I don't know if people outside the UK can watch and download these as they're BBC programmes but they show both sides of the debate. They also feature guidance notes given to US republican party politicians in how to cast doubt on climate change and even appears to admit in the memo's that climate change was real but gives tips on how to distract focus away onto the need for more research. It features memos that go something like
"The window of doubt is closing on climate change but there are still some areas we can exploit'
But like I say, there is evidence on both sides, I think it's clear that some of the evidence is so compellingly in favour of climate change that it's clear things need to be done now
I don't know if people outside the UK can watch and download these as they're BBC programmes but they show both sides of the debate. They also feature guidance notes given to US republican party politicians in how to cast doubt on climate change and even appears to admit in the memo's that climate change was real but gives tips on how to distract focus away onto the need for more research. It features memos that go something like
"The window of doubt is closing on climate change but there are still some areas we can exploit'
But like I say, there is evidence on both sides, I think it's clear that some of the evidence is so compellingly in favour of climate change that it's clear things need to be done now
Last edited:
The money argument is mute. There is money to be made on both camps. You don't think Al Gore has gotten buckets of money for his lectures? So the "they are payed off by big companies" argument doesn't hold ground unless you can actually prove that someone has been payed off.
Are you kidding me? So if we had to stop using our cars, close factories, stop using electric you think there's just as much money to be made out of selling climate change DVD's?
Is fairly straight forward, the world is in a financial crisis and stopping the use of polluting energy sources will send us into a financial black hole. That's why the major governments are delaying action as long as they can
There is not as much money to be made out of ecological issues and energy sources, if there were then companies would have already switched to them, it's simple market forces at play, if a mode of transport were invented that would make as much money as a petrol car then the major manufacturers would be mass producing already, the fact is there isn't.
Our choice is financial stability in the short to medium term or survival of the planet on the long term. It sounds easy when put like that but who is going to want to be a world leader that puts his country into financial meltdown?
The debate should have ended already, the real question is what to do about it. Who is prepared to change their lifestyle and perhaps even lose their job and home from the consequences of taking action?
I'm saying there is money to be made on both sides. I'm sure a lot of companies have interests against everyone thinking that climate change is man made, but that doesn't mean everyone who speaks up against the CO2 hypothesis are payed off. They have a right to be heard if they have scientific data. The problem is that they are not being heard. If you try to publish data that goes against the beliefs of the general population you'll get lynched. It always gets out of hand when politics mixes with science.
The fact you ask who the experts are just makes me wonder if you've actually looked into the issue at all. It's not some guy with a PHD, it thousands of groups, institutions, universities and governments from across the globe who have all come to the same conclusion. It's generally just China and the US, the world’s two major polluters that are throwing up doubt (and I mean doubt, not counter-evidence)
Here is the website for our government's weather service funded by the ministry of defence; they have lots of research and data on there
The arguement against climate change is weaker than that against evolution, and it's odd how it seems to be the same bunch of conservative republicans that are questioning new research
You basically proved my point that the so called experts are really no one. By you stating "US and China" you imply that someone is behind it. So who is behind it? In my opinion, companies, ie marketing people like you, me, and any other Joe who got a degree, probably says, "Hey, let's make a product, slap a 'Going Green' sticker on it, and sell it." Basically the concerns are "legit" but the fact is you base your decisions on environmental concerns by some source. That "source" is made up collectively by other people who are in the same boat as you who doesn't really know for sure what is going on but just anyway decides to make products/sell things for the sake of "going green" and "global warming."
It's sort of like the issue with Abortion. It's a tiring debate that everyone just piles on, and everyone has different ideas about it but in reality none of it really justifies anything about it or even proves a point.
I don't believe in "conspiracy" theory, mainly because one you imply that industries and governments are a single body when in fact they are all made up of people. It's highly doubtful that only a select few people would make a worldwide conspiracy to ignore global warming. What I think happened is that global warming was just a news spin and people bought into it just like nearly every other craze. It'll eventually go away, but in the meantime, prepare to endure a lot of talks about global warming and how we're all going to bake up.
Last edited:
Also, I think the argument that we should stop making auto cars and fuel is a very, very, very, very, very weak argument. I mean if we all held hands and sang songs by the campfire, world peace will break out. Do you see that happening any time soon? So yes, of course not making cars, and not processing fuel is going to help. Tell that to Joe who needs to drive to work every morning. Tell that to some dude waiting for a package to be delivered. Tell that to your super market who requires weekly deliveries for food. The government has no bearing on why we require cars and fuel, it's the consumer that requires it, and once you remove the consumers, you remove the problem.
Also, it's like saying google is out to get us. I mean the fact is everyone uses google to make searches. So it's only relevant that people use things that work, therefore it is the reason why google is so popular. If google was "out to get us" they wouldn't be so popular because their goal wouldn't be to provide information, but to "get you." So this "out to get you" idea of global warming that large companies are "out to get us" is weak and silly, I think. I mean they survive because we buy things from them, so it's only relevant that they continue making the products. They're not going to "burn us all" because they're people too.