I have always believed that without knowing that it is an actual theory until right now.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
So..Is Global Warming Real? Or not?
- Thread starter Ludiking43
- Start date
- Status
Manafi's Dream
フェアリータイプタイム
Of course! The land has always been naturally able to heal. The first thing to grow after a fire is grass. After the grass has brought some kind of life back, sproutlings that came from surviving seeds grow out of the ground. We may not see that area return to its former glory, but in one thousand years, the region would return to a state of blissful beauty. That is, should there be no more fires
Except would many of the measures enacted actually take care of the Earth? Many of them seem to be more of a redistribution measure, killing business in western countries while allowing them to flourish in eastern countries. To put it another way say Europe and the U.S. work to stop climate change. All that will do is empower China, India, and other countries who care less about the environment and more about expanding their economy.
Skiks
MUCH RESPECT
Well considering how China's air is so bad they wear masks on a daily basis, I'd say following China's example by killing our own population slowly would be rather contradictory to what we would want.
Manafi's Dream
フェアリータイプタイム
Don't forget Mexico City. I truly feel bad for those people, but they are the ones who didn't take care of their cities.
It's sad it happens, but they are good examples to us what can happen when we don't try to clean some of our mess.
I think what Skiks meant by that is regardless of global warming, human society should give a certain amount of respect to the environment and try take care of it. And that's an almost obvious truth, irrespective of whether China or India are going to overtake the U.S. as the largest economies in the next century (on that note I think it's a sad reflection that Western democracies spend far less than the Chinese government on environmental concerns such as land degradation, although granted the reason the Chinese government essentially has to do that is because they're also very good at being incredibly destructive).
It's a case of generational equity in some ways. It's all very well that you cut down a forest today and earn a heap of money for it, except what you're doing is you're taking away the forest from your children and your children's children. That's not to say there's no moral duty not to just wreck the forest, either (although that's subjective I don't think very many people would agree with me).
I don't think there's much of a debate for us here that global warming is or is not real. To be honest it's a case where we should just listen to scientists, they might be wrong (and probably are on some levels), but when it comes down to it they are far more knowledgeable on this subject than us. An Australian politician (Malcolm Turnbull, if anybody heres an Aussie) compared the denial of climate change to "ignoring the advice of your doctor to give up smoking on the basis that somebody down the pub told you their uncle Ernie had lived to 96 and smoked like a train all his life". And from what I've gathered that's essentially true, despite what individual news reports might occasionally suggest otherwise the scientific establishment seems to overwhelmingly support global warming as a base hypothesis. Not necessarily doomsday predictions, and there's certainly no agreement on how to deal with it, but the consensus is that humans are changing the climate. And in the same way it's inappropriate to ignore doctor's advice, it's inappropriate to ignore the scientific establishment as a whole. Mainly because there's a simple and obvious truth: they're smarter than you.
That being said, a lot of global warming doomsday predictions are a bit silly. Not because they're not true, they very well be true; but because it's a consistent underestimation of the power of technological innovation. In the 1890's there were a number of predictions going around that in twenty years Londoners would be ten feet deep in horse shit; in 1908 the Model T Ford was released. We obviously can't rely on the invention of some miracle technology to replace fossil fuels, but I don't think it's necessarily unlikely (the efficiency of solar panels in particular has gone up exponentially in the last decade, and the prospect of extracting oils from algae is incredibly promising). By all means Western governments, as well as Eastern ones, should take precautions against the "worst case scenario", but alarmism should be treated with a pinch of salt.
draya the dark master
Sort of Undead atm♥
global warming is false... and its a multibillion dollar industy that could be much better spent
and no... the end of the world is not near
and no... the end of the world is not near
I-am-the-peel
Justice Forever
It is pretty much true and it does contribute to the topic as it is called 'So...is global warming real? Or not?'. But it doesn't matter cause in about 5 years time, we will have lost holland and several species of animals. Then the maldives, and gradually more of the world untill everything is gone. And then the people will blame the politicians but really it is us for being ignorant to not believe it and purposely being unhealthy and polluting the world to its eventual, inevitable end. Don't think we would be sent to another world too, only the greatest of us (Celebrities and smart people who made great contributions to life) would be sent there.
Lord Argentine
A sadist's wymsy.
Global warming is crap. When you look at how the conclusions are reached, you realize it's all guess work. If anyone were really honest about it, they'd admit we possess a staggering lack of data and understanding when it comes to environments. If someone tells you the world is warming significantly, they're full of crap. If someone tells you the world is cooling, they're bull-ing. If they say the world is static, they're just stupid. If they even begin to speculate about the cause, they are undeserving of any respect whatsoever.
We don't know, but the 'climatologists' (meteorologists minus the already low reliability) seem loathe to admit that much. Additionally, much of the "green" folk believe in this view that if we leave nature alone, it'll do just fine.
IT WON'T.
Firstly, we aren't special enough to be separate from nature. We are in the ecosystem, so we are, necessarily, involved in nature, and are not unnatural in any way. An apartment complex is as natural as a termite mound.
Secondly, one merely needs to study the history of environmental management of Yellowstone National Park (or any similar situations, if you can find 'em) and its record of failed environmental management under the "leave it alone" philosophy as well as under active management philosophies.
We don't know what we're doing, ever, with the environment. We haven't the slightest understanding about dynamic environments.
If that upsets you, sorry, but you'd better learn to deal with it.
Global warming is a scientific hypothesis, even if it is soft science (can't be tested [realistically, and in under a few decades of time spent on observation]- computers are models, not actual observations, by the way). It's certainly worth studying, but it's far from anything meriting urgent political or social action.
Socially, it's the latest crisis sold to us by varied groups under the guise of science, and I find that despicably shameful. It tarnishes the name of science.
As a note on the term "climate change," before someone uses it: There's definitely climate change, but to say the climate is changing is to say absolutely nothing interesting.
It's never been static, it never will be static, and it isn't static.
You may as well say that you've discovered carnivorous predators, for all the meaning "climate change" has.
Finally, before someone trots out a model they think will convince me, I ask everyone to recall Lord Kelvin's estimation of the Earth's age (Abridged Version: He used thermodynamics to set it between 20 and 400 million years (actual is 4.4 billion or so), and his math was flawless, but he failed to account for heat generated by pressure or radiation, so his model wasn't accurate), and its ramifications for mathematical models describing systems we don't well understand, the Earth and its climate among them.
Which, you know, makes dictating national and international policy on such models somewhere between foolish and dangerous.
If someone tells you they know the Earth is warming, they're full of crap, just as they are if they tell you it's cooling or isn't changing. The only honest claim is one of confusion, ignorance, and climatology's relative immaturity as a field in science.
We don't know, but the 'climatologists' (meteorologists minus the already low reliability) seem loathe to admit that much. Additionally, much of the "green" folk believe in this view that if we leave nature alone, it'll do just fine.
IT WON'T.
Firstly, we aren't special enough to be separate from nature. We are in the ecosystem, so we are, necessarily, involved in nature, and are not unnatural in any way. An apartment complex is as natural as a termite mound.
Secondly, one merely needs to study the history of environmental management of Yellowstone National Park (or any similar situations, if you can find 'em) and its record of failed environmental management under the "leave it alone" philosophy as well as under active management philosophies.
We don't know what we're doing, ever, with the environment. We haven't the slightest understanding about dynamic environments.
If that upsets you, sorry, but you'd better learn to deal with it.
Global warming is a scientific hypothesis, even if it is soft science (can't be tested [realistically, and in under a few decades of time spent on observation]- computers are models, not actual observations, by the way). It's certainly worth studying, but it's far from anything meriting urgent political or social action.
Socially, it's the latest crisis sold to us by varied groups under the guise of science, and I find that despicably shameful. It tarnishes the name of science.
As a note on the term "climate change," before someone uses it: There's definitely climate change, but to say the climate is changing is to say absolutely nothing interesting.
It's never been static, it never will be static, and it isn't static.
You may as well say that you've discovered carnivorous predators, for all the meaning "climate change" has.
Finally, before someone trots out a model they think will convince me, I ask everyone to recall Lord Kelvin's estimation of the Earth's age (Abridged Version: He used thermodynamics to set it between 20 and 400 million years (actual is 4.4 billion or so), and his math was flawless, but he failed to account for heat generated by pressure or radiation, so his model wasn't accurate), and its ramifications for mathematical models describing systems we don't well understand, the Earth and its climate among them.
Which, you know, makes dictating national and international policy on such models somewhere between foolish and dangerous.
If someone tells you they know the Earth is warming, they're full of crap, just as they are if they tell you it's cooling or isn't changing. The only honest claim is one of confusion, ignorance, and climatology's relative immaturity as a field in science.
So the earth is neither cooling, warming or staying the same and any guess of what a fourth option is as stupid as suggesting either of the former options are the case? Interesting. See page one cuz I think we view this whole thing similarly.
SoulSilverMstr411
Hikikomori
Religious propaganda!
Just remember folks, a bunch of microbial bacteria managed to change the atmosphere so much that they nearly killed all life (I believe it was something like 80% of life). Of course that turned out to be a good thing for us since what nearly killed everything was oxygen they were adding to the atmosphere.
The point is that we are far more prevalent and far more capable of changing the world than some bacterial colonies performing photosynthesis, which means that us changing the atmosphere in some that causes it to warm isn't out of the question, or even implausible.
The point is that we are far more prevalent and far more capable of changing the world than some bacterial colonies performing photosynthesis, which means that us changing the atmosphere in some that causes it to warm isn't out of the question, or even implausible.
Ioneos
old geezer
Global warming is definitely being increased by humans, but the earth has gone through many climate changes. Im not saying we shouldn't try to stop humans from polluting the earth (just look at china-masks are a common day to day thing in urban areas), but we should know that global warming is happening, regardless of human interaction.
Global warming. as portrayed by the media, is a marketing farce to create a new "green" market for... well generating money. it's a cash grab that plays off peoples fear and Eco- awareness. Being eco-friendly is a Good thing, but at the same time it's being twisted with fear to squeeze us for more tax dollars.
Climate Change does occur, and always has, always will. with or without humans.
Climate Change does occur, and always has, always will. with or without humans.
- Status