Do you think the Greenhouse affect is man-made or a natural cycle? (page 2)

upside/down

Wasn't there a good AWAKE article on this once....

u/d(of the AWAKE Univ. PhD class)

caligirl

I lean more towards it being a natural cycle.

Black Sheep

I do consider myself a Greenie, but I am not a convert of all Greenie doctrines.

For example, I am very much anti pollution, but I don't see CO2 as a pollutant.

As you read comments from scientists, look for the loopholes they leave themselves. They have the same tricks as the Watchtower when making their dire predictions, even using some of the same keywords.

If you can find old Greenie literature, look at the predictions (prophesies) in it.

"Oh, but we know so much more now!" That is what my Dad says when his prophesies fail too. It doesn't give him any more credibility in my book.

Some people have a habit of calling into question the morals or mental stablity of those who disagree with their views and we already have an example of this in the thread. Please remember that your JW friends and relatives do this to you because you don't agree with their doctrines.

Like all doom and gloom sellers, the GW brigade sweep contrary data under the table and make much of anything that supports their claims.

The hard part is sorting out what the truth of the matter really is.

I remain sceptical of anyone who predicts doom and offers salvation, especially when it involves money........your money.

Cheers

Chris

Frog

If you can find old Greenie literature, look at the predictions (prophesies) in it.

Blacksheep, of course those predcitions didn't come true in their entirity, the point of predictions (the same as scientific climate change models) is to modify our behaviour to stop that eventuatlity from coming to fruitition.

Nobody is saying that partial climate change isn't nn part natural (and it really does rest on your interpretation of "natural), the point being made here is that human activity in the last few hundreds years has sped the process up exponentially.

As for upside/downs comments...as per usual trying to be controversial...I realise you think you're really clever & all for your point on humankind being a naturally occuring part of the ecosystem, but what we're talking about here is preserving the earth in some fit form to sustain your children & your children's children, to be able to enjoy the same benefits your (ignorant anthropocentric) generation has enjoyed.

diamondblue1974

As for upside/downs comments...as per usual trying to be controversial...I realise you think you're really clever & all for your point on humankind being a naturally occuring part of the ecosystem, but what we're talking about here is preserving the earth in some fit form to sustain your children & your children's children, to be able to enjoy the same benefits your (ignorant anthropocentric) generation has enjoyed.

agreed we take too much for granted!

DB74

Abaddon

Oh, it's largely man-made.

I cannot understand the credulity of anyone who can believe that humans can destroy forests at the rate they've been destroyed in the past 200 years AND dig up and burn what amounts to megatonnes of ancient fossilised forests and NOT change the climate.

It's like not linking your next door neighbour burning leaves with the smoke smuts on your laudry hung out to dry... instead crediting the smoke smuts to natural processes...

For fun you can play "follow the money" with those in the public eye who claim it isn't caused by man... they all have a major vested interest in the status quo.

"Oh, but we know so much more now!"

Said by a religious believer this means "the way I used to read this didn't work so I read it a different way now".

Said by a scientist it means "we know so much more now". The two paradigms aren't comparable.

"but I don't see CO2 as a pollutant"

Semantics. It isn't, as it occurs as a natural product of respiration, but it also is as it is a by product (or pullutant) of un-natural reactions that cannot occur in nature. Stupid semantics aside, as above certain concentrations it is certainly causes climate change, the difference is moot.. I'd love to stick G. W. Bush, another of the CO2 isn't a pollutant brigade, in a sealed chamber and let him determine what concentration of CO2 he personally regards as a pollutant.

HOWEVER, whilst there IS and WILL be climate change caused by industrialisation, it's not the end of the world by any streach.

Warmer weather and a closer beach, who's going to complain? Sure, millions will have to relocate as shorelines are inundated in the (probably) middle of this century. Holland will have to rebuild their dykes or get smaller. Bye bye Bangladesh. But life will go on, so it's not all doom and gloom.

At some point (as the South African leadership has had to change their beliefs about AIDS to match the science) the majority of US and Australian politicians will join the rest of the world in taking the issue seriously. They can only be bought by industrial concerns for a certain period...

FreeWilly

Abaddon,

Not trying to antogonize at all....... but a few questions:

"I cannot understand the credulity of anyone who can believe that humans can destroy forests at the rate they've been destroyed in the past 200 years "

Do you realize that Earth's forest cover has actually grown (not retreated) in the past 200 years?

What percentage of Earths atmosphere has changed since the industrial revolution?

Do you think the Suns cyclical activity could have anything to do with warming?

How about land use?

How come Earths Average temperature have gone down during a period where CO2 concentrations have increased (1930's and 1940's) - shouldn't they have gone up globally relevant to increased CO2?

If humans were never on Earth, do you think all our glaciers would continue to melt until there are none, as has happened previous interglacial periods?

How much have Earth's overall temperatures risen since they've been recorded (1880-present) ? How much of this rise in temperature is part of the overall rise attriputed to the interglacial period we are in, and how much is due to human activity?

Have any of the climate models been close to accurate in the past 30 years they've been employed?

Just questions that have made me think about it. We do have finite resources which make an accurate assesment of Earth's environmental challenges, and the allocation of those finite resources to combat them, all the more pertinant - wouldn't you agree?

-FW

daniel-p

I dont THINK it's both, it IS both. In the scientific realm, the contest to that is rapidly dwindling. The controversy starts in when people suggest the implications, try to predict the future, or dictate the way we should respond. The way I look at it is this: there are hundreds of thousands of people working on this problem all over the globe, doing research and not trying to prove anything, but letting the evidence prove itself. But, when the media gets a hold of it, it is so easy to distort what someone said, that the average layman (whether redneck or environmentalist) sitting at home gets all up in arms and acquires a new rant to go on about. I say for people to just sit back and relax and trust (just a little bit) these people who have devoted their lives to studying it and know a hell of a lot more than we do right here.

KW13

Basically we sped up a natural process.

Sad emo

Both.

But I believe that man's activities have altered the balance of the natural climate cycles - to what extent, I don't know.

Do you think the Greenhouse affect is man-made or a natural cycle?

Share this