For awhile, I was pretty convinced Global Warming was real, but lately I've been thinking a bit differenly. From what I've gathered from experts in the field, CO2 isn't really killing anything, enviormentalists make it out to be a life-threatening gas that is destroying the ozone through the greenhouse effect, but in actuality, 95% of Greenhouse gases are water vapor. So should we get rid of all the water on the planet?

Over the past hundreds of years the climate has changed, it's gotten hotter over a few decades, and then cooler again. This was happening before industry was even around yet, so how can you blame it on humans?

While I agree we should limit how much toxic gas we release into the sky, I don't think we're destroying the atmosphere, and I believe the facts support that. I really think that political figures are just exploiting the common citizen's misunderstanding of Global Warming to further their own political agendas. What do you guys think?

I hope environmentalist realize that WE breathe CO2 into the air. 6+ billion people on this planet can create quite a large amount of CO2. However, what do plants do with the CO2? Oh, they turn back into breathable air! OMG, science at work!

Global Warming=Fake

End of topic

Well this assumes there will still be enough plants left to do this . But I guess the whole continent of Africa could support us for a while, as I don't think anyone is going to try to invade/modernize that area any time soon. Rain Forests are pretty dangerous places, and if nature doesn't get you, the totalitarian regimes that run most of those countries likely will.

But yeah I always did wonder if this was not just a natural phenomenon, as recorded history only goes back some 2000-5000 years or so. And I really don't think we've had very reliable weather reports for that long, maybe a couple hundred years. So yeah while I'm sure pumping our air full of unnatural byproducts is going to eventually have a negative impact, not so sure it's going to be climate change.

Of course one easy way to reduce the amount and spread of pollution would be to switch to fully electric cars, or at least 80% electric, as it would likely cause less pollution to increase the number of power plants to support the drain on the grid, than to have thousands of cars on the interstate constantly giving off their cocktail of dangerous gases. But don't think that will be happening anytime soon as the Oil and Auto industries would lose way too much money, and of course the economy would take a pretty nice size hit because of this. Plus it would take 10 or 20 years to realize anyway unless you force people to buy these new cars, which would mean public outrage or a large deficit for the government to give out subsidies. But of course we wouldn't have to rely on getting fuel from one of the most unstable places on the planet. Guess that's not important enough to the political leaders as we can just bomb them when they get out of hand. You know and use more Oil doing that. I know when I get the money I'm getting me a hybrid, to save money at the pump as the price will likely keep going up as we come closer and closer to peak production level worldwide. Then if I find the time I might start work building a full electric car, or if I get a lot of money, find someone to build it for me. It'd be cool to pretty much never have maintenance, have a car that last about 3 times longer than the standard, and not have to pay anything for gas (and pretty sure electricity is a lot cheaper, since I believe most of that comes from coal, which we have quite a bit of here in the US). Plus a 200 mile per charge range isn't too bad.

Finding new ways to produce electricity would be nice too, but unfortunately for the most part using fossil fuels is much more cost effective and reliable than many of their cleaner alternatives. Nuclear still carries that large catastrophe in the event of a failure and the whole what do we do with the waste from it, Wind is pretty unreliable and requires very large plots of land to be successful, and Solar is also somewhat unreliable and only recently became somewhat efficient and viable.

But I think a lot of us are starting to become aware that the environment has been taking one for the team a bit too much, and are working to curtail our destruction of it. But as long as it remains cost effective, don't see too many people changing their ways.

It's my belief that global warming IS a naturally occurring phenomenon, but that we humans are accelerating the process tenfold. I suggest you guys look up global dimming, it's another problem we're causing for the environment.

Chloroflourocarbons, and I really am not even looking back to check the spelling on that, are chemicals commonly resident within things such as... well, most everything we use. In particular aerosol, foam, plastics, etc.

O3 is the ozone chemical, in fact, and is spread about the earth in a sheet thinner than your fingernail. Said chemicals dissimilate these O3 chains, the chlorine mostly as I recall, though it has been to long, and what is left is only carbon.
O3, in its prime functioning capacity, reflects the majority of the sun's rays, as no doubt we're all aware.
When gone, more sun lacking filtration gets into the Earth, and then, as well, the remnant carbon particles keep those within our atmosphere.

The plants can't possibly keep up with the rate at which we are devastating the environment.

As well, global warmings have been cyclical for as long as we can chart on this plant, but now that we have one with the aid of Greenhouse Gases we have global warmings which are unlike anything ever charted.
This extreme warming is correspondent to the industrial revolution to a near T.

*shrug*
That's my speel.

Gee, Pheonix...
It's kinda difficult to see you as anything but a "stereotypical Christian" when you go around discounting climate change on Earth Day.

I don't see how you you can simply presume tens of thousands of scientists are lying. And what "political agendas" can you possibly further by telling us to consume less?

Water vapour makes up 95% of greenhouse gas
True. But water vapour also has the tendency to form clouds. White clouds have a high albedo index and work to reflect UV rays.

Why doesn't that principal work for CO2?
CO2 doesn't reflect light; it contains heat energy released by stone, pavement, etc. that was warmed by the sun.

We exhale CO2, too!
No foolin'?!
All organisms do, including plants.
The problem is that there is no balance. The fossil fuels we're burning are releasing the carbon collected by organisms at a rate exponentially higher than the time it took to initially gather. The offset means there's a much higher concentration of CO2 then the atmosphere ever had before.

Oceans dissolve CO2
But if you'll recall your chemistry, CO2 dissolved in water (like in carbonated drinks) forms an equilibrium between CO2 + water and carbonic acid. The pH of oceans is decreasing, and it's harmful to sea life. (Shells and skeletons are weaker when formed in acidic water)

This is in addition to sea life threatened by an increase in oceanic temperature as little as 1°C.

1°C?! Bah! Something so frail would go extinct anyway...
Water has a very high specific heat capacity. Raising the entire ocean's temperature even one degree would take a tremendous amount of energy. But do to the green house effect it appears to be happening...


If you're still rolling your eyes at this, you must at least accept one thing: there is a finite amount of fossil fuels on this planet. There's no harm in researching alternative energies while waiting for that inevitability.

i've mentioned this before.

Michael Crichton, State of Fear.

*shrug* i found it an interesting argument against the existence of an artificially exacerbated global warming threat. i found the book fairly well balanced, at that.

... i can hear you guys quoting science here... but i've heard the science before. To a degree it's not even about what's said in this debate anymore, it's much more about who's saying what. i'm undecided as to this whole issue (though i'm in favour of alternative energies).

... my thought is, though... i can't help but suspect that simply trading science facts as we seem to be doing is going to lead us exactly nowhere, just like it has done for everyone else.

we're hardly experts, however convinced some of us may be.

i'd say more, but... meh. i might as well wait around until those of you with the larger vocabularies use them to batter those with lesser vocabularies into terrified submission.

@Gustaff

I completely forgot it was earthday. That was not intentional. Also I never said I was against researching new energy sources. I guess my main point is that I think politicians are putting a whole bunch of unnecessary spin on this to get people to vote for them. And I'm not a "stereotypical Christian".

See. This is why the Pav got rid of it's debate forum.

I'LL BE IN THE ANGRY DOME.

Aye, John, if the science pertained to the argument in any conclusive way there very likely wouldn't be an argument.
However, as a 20 year old without a car or job and an alcoholic propensity, I really don't have anything to add.
A collective is needed to aid this planet.
That collective is busy either denying the planet needs any such aid or tossing around the science to each other with the notion that something must be done affirmed on multiple occasions throughout the flow of conversation.
More beer is then had.

*shrug*
I don't think there's much more than to toss either facts, theory laden facts, or illegitimate opinions about in a forum dedicated to RPGs - which currently utilize nearly complete petrol products throughout the entire video-game industry.
With that, for me, it's already a moot point where nothing should actually be expected to arise, really.

For the sake of argument... I am science, knaves.

I made a thread for this already..

http://www.rpgmmag.com/forums/viewtopic ... ble&t=2799

*shrug*

A dead topic.

XD not anymore I guess. lol

Such fowl language. How dare you sully the good nature of this thread (Sarcasm_detector="1") you curr.

But though this topic may be dead, I might as well through in my two cents as there will be no one to really debate it. The planet is slowly dying... it's not an eternal entity. Reguardless of what we do, it will eventually give out. Just like the sun is slowly burning out.

And actually, the fact that the sun is burning out is yet another proof of my statment. If the Earth was 1% of it's distance between the sun was expanded, we would all die the next winter. Granted, that 1% is many hundreds of miles... but still.

Global warming is just a term used to bring the planets fading into the public. But even so, weither we may be able to prolong it's life is questionable.

It is not about prolonging its life, it's about killing its pain.

Its hard for me to think about this topic. I just got over a very long and cold winter.
I guess its still comming. We just don't see it that much yet.

I can agree to that. ^^

*shrug* I would say not causing it.

Either way, winter doesn't disappear because of global warming. Not immediately. You just came through a cold winter, it's true, but in the summer hundreds of thousands died during record heat waves all over the world.
The African Savannahs are all but dried up, permafrost melting, the Antarctic and Arctic ice shelves disappearing, etc, etc, and all those various bits of science.