But one can easily be selective about which articles one uses to back an arguement. If I went and got a heap of links to articles that supported climate change would they be wrong?

 

Does the whole of America have allergies? Im not saying we should stop using electricity or anything like that but hanging washing on the line isn't going to hurt anyone who doesn't have an 'allergy'.

What do we really have to lose as a world though by being energy efficient? If everyone in the world put a solar panel on their roof where there was regular sunlight, we would cut down CO2 output by tonnes.

 

Yes, that's a good point. Even if what Nick says was the entire truth, which I personally doubt, we still have to look out for alternative ways of providing people with electricity, as we'll run out of gas, oil and coal pretty soon.

 

The chance of this whole topic might be, that for the first time in human history all people of all countries face the same, global problem beyond petty mutual cutting off recources and gaining some dodgy power over others. This would be a great chance to indulge on the the positive sides of globalisation.

 

I spent some time demonstrating for this cause the last week, and most people I've met aren't fear- ridden and hysterical, they are simply concerned and would like to get a sensible result in Copenhagen, and beyond Copenhagen.

 

Btw, I tend to think, that there are very many jobs in what is called a green revolution. And more genuine, long-lasting freedom and indipendence, for both individual and national entities.

Clotheslines don't work for people with allergies. We could all cook with fire, bath in rivers and go back to the stone age.

 

The killer- argument tactic doesn't really help.

You do critizise fear- tactics and throw in scare- tactics to proove your point, how does that add up to anything?

 

Nobody has to wash his laundry in the rivers again, if we empower sensible (! there seem to be lot of shitty 'alternative' energy- plans) ways of getting energy for our cars and household maschines and blah.

Why wouldn't you use energy saving alternatives regardless of how much it would save the environment if it saved you money?If you had your own tank, how much would you save in water bills? If you had a solar panel, how much would you save on electricity bills?

You would save an awful lot of money, and that's what's so intriguing about it, it's just full of effin' advantages. I can't see any downside whatsoever.

And blaming 'the rich and greedy bastards' is yet another distracting wrong trait.

 

All those arguments fuel the concept of 'panem et circenses' which you claim to be the problem here, to be straight honest. As much as not all the filthy rich are mere pathetic bastards, not every poor man and woman is a saint. And you know that, so why using those twisted arguments at all. Look what happened, when the certainly opressed masses were empowered in the former or still communist countries, they created bloody hell as well.

 

Btw Nick, I'm quite thankful for your input here, as it gives the opportunity to dig out those mislead irritations, which corrupt our minds and prevent us from focussing on the crucial facts austerely.

 

Being equipped with reflective brains, we humans are still on the road on how to use this amazing tool properly, I think. We now may have entered a stage, where we could overcome some very primitive ideas of how to use it.

 

There was immense trial and error in the last decades ( well, yeah centuries and stuff), which was obviously necessary to experience what's sensitive and what's just not. Thanks to globalisation, things do speed up now. I can only see a great, great chance to develop both collectively and consequently tied to that individually.

 

Again, even if we're doomed, why not go for it in grace. :wideeyed:

No offense Nick, but its nice that a few other people have seen how ridiculous your debates can be. CO2 is good for selected plants so therefore its brilliant for everything? Actually the 'Some people have allergies' was the weirdest.

I'm going to quote Joshua

 

Random half drunken/tired rant: For you people bringing up CO2 bullshit: Temperature levels increase CO2 levels, not the other way around. The ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere when it gets warmer; it isn't CO2 emissions causing global warming, or any greenhouse gas for that matter.

 

The most common greenhouse gas on Earth is H2O (Water Vapor) anyway.

 

So even if Global warming IS happening, it's not humans causing it, and it never will be. Humans can never measure up to the Earth's own natural climate cycles.

 

It's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years; humans have only been here for some 200,000, and we only just began using Fossil fuels.

__________________

 

The debate is still on and all I've seen there is more evidence against it than for it. Until I see something the proves otherwise I'm not going to give money and power and inconvenience myself on something that very well may be false.

i don't think john lennon was simply being naive, not at all.

uhm, this is not only the song btw.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbKsgaXQy2k]YouTube- John Lennon & Yoko Ono: WAR IS OVER! (If You Want It)[/ame]

Well as Ive stated before in this thread, debating with people who believe in extreme conspiracy theories is really difficult because of their vague, tedious connections and inability to stick to the point.

 

But thanks for the John Lennon video :thinking:

Okay so lets say that global warming is 100% natural, humans are playing 0% of a role in it....it still seems like a good idea to me that we adapt practices that reduce CO2 emissions.

 

And quite simply I'm not buying any of the bullshit saying that climate change is just a big scam to get power and wealth. If that were the case why are the leaders of the world dragging their heals and not rushing out and getting rich off of climate change.

 

Isn't it the opposite? In Canada first of all we are weaking our already weak targets. The majority of the world is using 1990 as their baseline for setting reduction targets. Canada is using 2006 to make it look like we're doing more than we actually are.

Canada is more concerned with the Tar Sands in Alberta, a massive operation that will make Canada money but is absolutely raping the environment. Thats where our countries priorities lie.

 

If we continue our ways of developing, gobbling up limited resources, cutting down rainforests, dumping pollution into the atmosphere, dumping pollution into the oceans, etc. etc. etc. we are all in trouble.

 

And sure to dramatically change our current system into something more sustainable is going to cost lots of money, and jobs will be lost. But at the same time, not doing anything, and paying the price down the road will also be very expensive. And while jobs may be lost, new jobs can be created. A switch to a hydrogen economy, switching to green buildings, switching to alternative energy sources also creates new jobs.

 

An interesting video that my friend sent me:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY&feature=related]YouTube- The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See 2[/ame]

The thing is, if governments really have fucked up and they end up putting all this money into renewable energy resources, then it will only be a portion of the economy that was going to be lost when resources ran out anyway and no lives will be lost. If governments fail to act and climate change really is happening and their is a way we could've prevented it, we have fucked up 10 times worse. It will the world and peoples lives at risk.

Well as Ive stated before in this thread, debating with people who believe in extreme conspiracy theories is really difficult because of their vague, tedious connections and inability to stick to the point.

 

But thanks for the John Lennon video :thinking:

 

Yes not believing in global warming is a conspiracy theory.

 

Okay so lets say that global warming is 100% natural, humans are playing 0% of a role in it....it still seems like a good idea to me that we adapt practices that reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Why, if CO2 isn't bad, why reduce it? As studies are showing it may be bad for the environment to reduce CO2. In trying to do good we very well might cause a bigger problem. The wrong action with best intentions often creates a bigger problem.

When has anything caused by man been benefical for the environment? We physically alter the environment to suit ourselves and we think the world is just going on behaving normally like nothing is happening.

When has anything caused by man been benefical for the environment? We physically alter the environment to suit ourselves and we think the world is just going on behaving normally like nothing is happening.

 

I'm not saying don't take care of the environment, I'm saying let's focus on the science not speculation of global warming. There is a lot of research on how our actions are destroying the ocean, and the alarming amount of cancer being caused by pollution.

 

I read a while ago the co-founder of Greenpeace is against global warmest because they have hijacked the real issues and efforts to actually help the environment. If we take all the wasted time and money fighting "global warming" and spend that effort on other issues that are more proven and need our attention we could do more of the planet. There are more realistic proven environmental issues out there than global warming and CO2, which very well may be good for the environment.

Well as Ive stated before in this thread, debating with people who believe in extreme conspiracy theories is really difficult because of their vague, tedious connections and inability to stick to the point.

 

But thanks for the John Lennon video :thinking:

 

with the one not being naive, i was referring to john lennon. :nice:

I'm not saying don't take care of the environment, I'm saying let's focus on the science not speculation of global warming. There is a lot of research on how our actions are destroying the ocean, and the alarming amount of cancer being caused by pollution.

 

I read a while ago the co-founder of Greenpeace is against global warmest because they have hijacked the real issues and efforts to actually help the environment. If we take all the wasted time and money fighting "global warming" and spend that effort on other issues that are more proven and need our attention we could do more of the planet. There are more realistic proven environmental issues out there than global warming and CO2, which very well may be good for the environment.

 

I agree with the focus on the science but 'global warming' isnt the same as exterrestrials. With the redirection of funds, you could say the same about war. If the US put all the money they did into Iraq and put it into enviroment pursuit like you said: ocean pollution, deforestation etc, the world would be a better place. Taking funding out of global warming research isn't going to make the situation better. Can you take after the funding from the scientist who suggest "global cooling" and that "CO2 is good for the environement" as well? Are they just as unecessary?

I've been thinking about this whole thing and I just can't decide what is right. I used to think that global warming is true and caused mostly by humans. Then I started noticing that there are people who think it is a fraud. Finally some weeks ago (maybe more than a month ago, I don't know) I stopped having an opinion. A lot of people say that it is real and then again some say that it isn't, and I can see why it could be real and why it maybe isn't. Every time I start thinking about it it's like a loop that never ends.

In my country we don't have to give money to help fighting global warming, and if we did I think I would be against that. I also think that me or my family pollute the atmosphere in very small amounts (by driving a car, for example; whether or not that is causing global warming it is still pollution) so global warming being a fraud or not doesn't affect us much. So I'm kind of lucky that I don't have to decide yet.

I've been thinking about this whole thing and I just can't decide what is right. I used to think that global warming is true and caused mostly by humans. Then I started noticing that there are people who think it is a fraud. Finally some weeks ago (maybe more than a month ago, I don't know) I stopped having an opinion. A lot of people say that it is real and then again some say that it isn't, and I can see why it could be real and why it maybe isn't. Every time I start thinking about it it's like a loop that never ends.

In my country we don't have to give money to help fighting global warming, and if we did I think I would be against that. I also think that me or my family pollute the atmosphere in very small amounts (by driving a car, for example; whether or not that is causing global warming it is still pollution) so global warming being a fraud or not doesn't affect us much. So I'm kind of lucky that I don't have to decide yet.

 

With over 6 billion people on our planet, even the small things all add up. Every car ride, every SUV on the road, every article of clothing imported from the third world, every banana purchased from the Caribbean....etc...etc....it all adds up.

 

If CO2 emissions continue to rapidly expand, if we continue to use up all our resources, then it will affect you. And it will affect your children. And it will affect your grandchildren.

 

Thats the thing, the way we are treating the planet is really screwing over future generations who will be left with our mess.

if we continue to use up all our resources,

 

That is what really concerns me. CO2 so far has had more evidence showing it's good not bad but our resources and population are concerning.

I think that we all have to as many have said prior to this post that we need to watch what we are consuming. I get the impression that people think that we can't use up ALL the resources, much like people think that they can't be hurt or get into an accident because it "can't happen to them".

 

I do believe in climate change because it's been happening since the origin of this planet. I think it has some to do with man, but perhaps not all. I mean after all this planet has been around for billions of years going through so many different climate changes (of heating periods and ice ages) way before we were around. I don't think we fully know what is going on. For example there was all this talk about the planet heating up, and then recently people are saying the planet is cooling down. So who really knows?

 

Regardless of the debate on global warming/cooling/whatever we all should be more conscience in what we do to the environment. If we keep going at the rate we are going we will use up all the resources and there will be too many people using up those resources, which is a major problem. Earth is our home and we should treat it with respect. As an analogy you wouldn't wan't someone coming into your home and throw trash or shit all over the place and not caring.

That is what really concerns me. CO2 so far has had more evidence showing it's good not bad but our resources and population are concerning.

 

Yeah, now most CO2 emissions do come from the burning fossil fuels, a limited resource. So if you can contain CO2 emissions better you would think that the use of finite resources would also be reduced.

 

 

This clip sums up the state I'm at about this issue atm. Thankies.

i don't think john lennon was simply being naive, not at all.

uhm, this is not only the song btw.

 

 

Yep, John Lennon may appear to have been very naive in what he was asking people to do, but I do agree, that he was not naive at all. Reminds me of a clip:

 

Why don't you change? An interesting question.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEIfMqM5wnM]YouTube- Krishnamurti : Why don't You Change?[/ame]

 

Back to the climate now. :disappointed:

With over 6 billion people on our planet, even the small things all add up. Every car ride, every SUV on the road, every article of clothing imported from the third world, every banana purchased from the Caribbean....etc...etc....it all adds up.

 

If CO2 emissions continue to rapidly expand, if we continue to use up all our resources, then it will affect you. And it will affect your children. And it will affect your grandchildren.

 

Thats the thing, the way we are treating the planet is really screwing over future generations who will be left with our mess.

 

I agree that small things are important.

 

I don't see how I am polluting the atmosphere. I don't see how my grandma is polluting the atmosphere. I can only see my mom doing that with driving. She sometimes drives me but I usually go by bus or by foot. I don't see how I could change my actions to "help the planet". That's how global warming being a fraud or not doesn't really affect me, because I don't see what I could do. I support clean and fresh air regardless of global warming.

 

Now when it comes to expressing my opinion on global warming, I have a problem because I don't know what to think. Should I fight for decreased emissions of CO2? Should I talk to people convincing them that the planet is doomed? Or should I talk to them saying it's all fake? I don't know. I can only keep thinking about it until I find some sort of a solution.