Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
you can not believe in climate change and global warming all you want, but that does not take away from the fact that we are nearing peak oil. Conventional sources of oil are considered to peak at roughly 2030.
We as a world need to start to find ways to bridge the energy gap that we will encounter if we keep our reliance on fossil fuels, we NEED to start using more sustainable (which are usually cleaner) forms of energy.
i personally believe whole heartadly in climate change and it worries me. Not so muhc because im worried that it will directly affect me (shit if the arctic ice caps carry on melting at the rate they are, the jetstream will probably switch off and i'll have snow 4 months of the year) but becuase of the huge loss of bio-diversity we will see! We are currently gonig through the 6th stage of mass extinction in history ( extinction rates are 10-100x faster than natural levels) this will most likely reacher much faster rates if climate cange carries on happening!
First off, let me apologize. My posts yesterday were obviously emotionally and politically charged, and I shouldn't have stooped down to the level of personal attacks on your intelligence like I did. I am sorry about that. That still doesn't change the fact that you guys are completely clueless as to this whole issue at hand.
Since both of you (woozy, Lorax) are accusing me of being so polarized on this issue, let me first tell you what I think. I think that the foundation of science is based on healthy debate. I think the entire scientific method revolves around skepticism, and the ability for the whole scientific community to prove/disprove any theory that's thrown out there. There is a MAJOR difference, however, between actual meaningful debate between scientists and the flat out 'denial' campaign that seems to be manifesting itself right now in a very small part (~3%) of the scientific community, and a very large number of politicians and corporations trying to protect their interests.
The "science" (and I will keep putting this in quotes) in the article is bad, plain and simple. While the arguments may appear to be valid at face value, almost every point is stripped of it's context by the authors and designed to manipulate. While the purpose of my post isn't to debate the article piece by piece, which I would be happy to do, I want to emphasize this point. It is essentially a piece of propaganda put out by a known conservative source (WSJ's parent company is News Corp, which also owns Fox News) to further this misinformation campaign. Most of the contributors are not qualified in any way to discuss the subject on a professional lever. Read the list of endorsers - I am seeing more engineering, chemistry, genetics, and technology academics then climate scientists. The experts that are on there, like Richard Lindzen, who woozy was so quick to point out, belong to the <1% of climate scientists that seem to disagree, yet seem to get more press and publicity than the other 99%. Why do you think that is?
The fact of the matter is that our earth is warming, and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are the cause. The physical processes that are causing this are well known, and have been since the 19th century. To deny this isn't skepticism, it's flat out ignorance. Sure, there are unanswered questions, as we can't accurately predict how various feedback mechanisms from the rise in temperature will affect the overall balance of the earth's climate, but the underlying science is NOT in question.
The biggest question is whether or not it makes sense to invest trillions of dollars globally to combat this problem immediately, which, ironically, I think the answer is no. The economics are really what's in question, and it's really a shame that corporate interest groups and easily manipulated politicians have resorted to attacking the scientific community to accomplish their political objectives. The problem WILL end up solving itself as we run out of nonrenewable resources, the question is how much damage will be done in the process.
Now, a quick rebuttal to some of the more dimwitted things you guys have said:
woozy: "says the kid [me] who believes that C02, which is a staggering 0.03% of our atmosphere, is driving Earth's climate."
Wow man, I don't even know where to go with this one. Proves again you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Yeah, lots of things drive the climate, but the role CO2 plays in trapping infrared emissions and warming the planet is well established. Look, I can throw numbers around too - Ozone, for example, is about 0.00006% of the atmosphere, surely something in that small a concentration can't affect the planet in any way, can it?
Lorax: "You think I can't tell the difference from a peer reviewed article to an opinion piece?"
Maybe you can, but you certainly have no problem posting an opinion piece and then telling everyone to take it at face value, while conveniently omitting that fact.
Lorax: "I get battered every day by my science professors talking about global warming or climate change and it's supposed effects and how we're causing it. If I were gullible, wouldn't I be eating up everything they say and taking it as truth because they're my professors? No, because I'm a skeptic and don't take everything at face value."
This is funny. Not saying you shouldn't take things with a grain of salt sometimes, but you're justification for this is pretty irrational. Maybe I shouldn't listen to my engineering professors when they're teaching me about failure criteria for the aluminum in aircraft wings, because I'm a skeptic and don't take everything at face value. They're not experts or anything…
Lorax: "promoting globalist policies that reduce sovereignty and distract people from real problems such as global topsoil degradation/loss, deforestation, ocean acidification, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, clean water access and many other problems that people forget about because CO2 caused the polar bears to look sad on TV."
I never said these weren't real problems… what you need to realize is that many, if not ALL of these things either further contribute to the issue you so adamantly deny exists, or are direct results of it. Forests are major carbon sinks, and help absorb atmospheric CO2.. ocean acidification is a direct result of increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, topsoil degradation and loss of farmland is resulting from desertification associated with climate change… these problems are all related, and rising temps associated with CO2 emissions is the root cause.
I am sitting here, hoping, praying, that the majority of you are trolling.
Your fantisist assertions that humans are not causing global warming makes me sick. Own up to the fact that we are destroying the earth.
The greenhouse effect is simple, established atmosperic science.
Now, i leave you all to come to terms with your inadequacies.
Threads.