I personally believe that GLobal Warming(Climate Change) or whatever you want to call it is not something to worry about. Before you say it, no, I am not denying any evidence because I do not see any evidence that supports GW to deny. I am sad, that this died before I could get to it but maybe this post will start things back up.

At this moment I do not have time to write out a book on why I don't believe Global Warming is an issue. There are lots of things I want to say, and will, even if no one reads this(talking to ones self is so much fun, no?). However I would like to post this link for now:

Increase inCO2 is Not a Cause for Alarm>Clicky

I know its alot to read, but its very interesting. I will be back later to say more....but right now I am starving and need to make dinner,



God Bless

You see no evidence bc you are looking at the wrong sources.

There's more carbon dioxide in the air now for the first time in many thousands of years. Carbon dioxide and other pollutants trap uv radiation heating our earth and accelerating a cooling reaction which causes dramatic climate change.

I have looked at other sources, in fact I did an entire report on GW back in 9th grade. However I now disagree with alot of what I said in that report. My dad has another good article but I can't find it at the moment. Also who says climate change is bad? the Earth's climate has been changing ever since God created the world. Things fluctuate and some years are hotter/colder than others but how can we know there isn't a pattern to it? We haven't been able to make accurate recordings of our climate for very long.

Also, since when has Carbon Dioxide been a bad thing??? Everyone keeps saying how its sooooo bad for the environment and yet one of the main things plants need to survive is carbon dioxide. I'm not much of a scientist but logically speaking wouldn't it be good for the plants if there is more carbon dioxide to go around? And therefore more oxygen for us since plants emit oxygen; more plants=more oxygen. Does anyone else agree?

Maybe I am totally wrong, maybe something really bad could happen. I admit pollution is something we should deal with/get rid of, but I don't really think that CO2 is a pollutant. I don't think we should totally ignore the world around us and I think researching this GW/Climate Change issue is a good idea but it has been blown waaaaaay out of proportion in my opinion.

If you have evidence supporting the opposite of my posts, please post it. I would like to read it. Also I don't think there are any "wrong" sources as you put it. I am not going to ignore sources that support GW, however I am going to check if they are really reliable. I'm not going to blindly accept articles that support my beliefs either. My father gave me that article and he would not give me something that wasn't reliable.

God Bless,
Caitlynn

Remember, it's climate change as a result of excessive warming. I don't know how advanced the meterology class is in ninth grade, but your understanding of the issue is quite innaccurate just FYI. Carbon dioxide can be poisonous to both peope and plants in excessive amounts. And they are at their highest levels in nearly a million years. CO2 is not the only thing we pump into the air. Sulphur is another terrible thing for the enviornment. Pollutants like these aren't. We do exist within enviormental crisis.

I suggest looking up credentialed climatology journals.

First: "Eccesive Amounts" is a rather loos term. Do you perhaps have a specific concentration level number? If not I'll look it up but I was hoping you might so I don't have to waste time looking for something that obscure.
Second: do you have any specific journals in mind?
Thirdly: I admit science has never been my strong point, and in ninth grade we weren't even studying stuff related to GW(our teacher just needed a big assignment for us to work on over Christmass Break and she seems to enjoy giving us out-of-the-blue projects) I don't even remember half the stuff I put in the report. Most of my opinions(today) are based on recent research and discussions with my dad. And Yes, sulpher is a pollutant, but I don't see anyone blaming it for GW, not so with CO2. I believe poor CO2 has been falsely accused.



"Gore’s CO2 Errors

Many of us are aware that we are living in an ice age, where we have hundred-thousand-year intervals of big continental glaciers that cover much of the land area of the Northern hemisphere, interspersed with relative short interglacial intervals like the one we are living in now. By looking at ice cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, one can estimate past temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Al Gore likes to display graphs of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past million years or so, showing that when CO2 rises, the temperature also rises. Doesn’t this prove that the temperature is driven by CO2? Absolutely not! If you look carefully at these records, you find that first the temperature goes up, and then the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere goes up.

There is a delay between a temperature increase and a CO2 increase of about 800 years. This casts serious doubt on CO2 as a climate driver because of the fundamental concept of causality. A cause must precede its effect. … Sure, temperature and gas burning are correlated, just like temperature and atmospheric levels of CO2. But the thing that changes first is the cause. In the case of the ice cores, the cause of increased CO2 is almost certainly the warming of the oceans. The oceans release dissolved CO2 when they warm up, just like a glass of beer rapidly goes flat in a warm room. If not CO2, then what really causes the warming at the end of the cold periods of ice ages? A great question and one of the reasons I strongly support research in climate.

CO2 Not Pollutant

I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1,000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm.

Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.* We are all aware that “the green revolution” has increased crop yields around the world. Part of this wonderful development is due to improved crop varieties, better use of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, etc. But no small part of the yield improvement has come from increased atmospheric levels of CO2. Plants photosynthesize more carbohydrates when they have more CO2. Plants are also more drought-tolerant with more CO2, because they need not “inhale” as much air to get the CO2 needed for photosynthesis. At the same time, the plants need not “exhale” as much water vapor when they are using air enriched in CO2. Plants decrease the number of stomata or air pores on their leaf surfaces in response to increasing atmospheric levels of CO2. They are adapted to changing CO2 levels and they prefer higher levels than those we have at present."

--"In testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Feb. 25, 2009, highly respected scientist William Happer explained why he rejects the hysteria over CO2 and why he believes that “the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind.” This article is excerpted from that testimony." **--

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31748

NOTE: The emphasis is my own, also there is more to the article and it is better read in its entirety.

*I underlined the section I did because of your comment:

**This was post at the beginning of the article on the website. Here is an article on William Happer, which sites the article quoted above> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer


I apologize for the length of this post but it couldn't be avoided and I pray you actually take the time to read it.
God Bless,
Caitlynn

This post has been edited by Godlovesyou&me: Sep 22 2009, 02:27 PM

No I don't have specific concentration ratios but they are at their highest levels in mankind history. It's a slippery slope. Carbon as well as oxygen can be poisonous to people of there's to much. But the real danger comes from pollutants' ability to trap uv radiation; thus causes climate change.

There are many meterological and climatological journals out there. Your local library may be able to help.

well apparently not everyone agress on that. William Happer(sorry to usse the same source all the time but I haven't read the other articles in awhile), and I don't agree with what he said about evolving btw, but he did make the comment that our present level is about 380 ppm and is you take what he said about evolving at a level of 1100 ppm he then made the comment that "Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels"

What actually causes the "greenhouse effect" on earth is water and vapors, no CO2 and other pollutants. Some people seem to think that the rise of vapors has increased because of CO2, when in actuallity water "feedback" is nearly zero or negative according to satellite observations. Yet CO2 "is at the highest point it has been in millions of years" Hhm, interesting.

Also, in the past ten years global tmeperature has actually dropped. Global Warning? I think not, unles the new deffinition of warm is cold, ice, freezing.

I would also like to point out that the editors of such Journals are often biased against anything that doesn't support their view on Climate Change. And their view is usually that it is a crisis. So the only articles that people ever see in "credentialed" Journals are ones that support Climate Change as a crisis. William Happer was actually fired from his government job for speaking out against Clinton's action on GW/CC.


God Bless,
Caitlynn

Global warming causes glbal cooling as a homeostatic mechanism to maintain balance. But the trouble with that is the dramatic climate change that results. Crops have a hard time adjusting to such floccuations.

In 1940-70 everyone was freeking out about a coming "ice age" because the the world was cooling and no one could predict an end in sight, but then the world started to warm up again(causing the global warming "crisis") and the warming period continued till about ten years ago when we started to cool down again. Its a cycle, yes. The one causes the other, but I don't think its really anything to worry about.

Things like Hurricanes, Tsunamies, etc, are going to happen, maybe they are caused when the globe stops warming then cools or vise-versa but I don't reallly think that man is the cause of this warming/cooling cycle. Its a natural process that works outside of our current realm of knowledge, maybe one day we'll figure it out, which is why I'm not against researching climate change. However the issue has been blown way out of proportion by the media and political leaders.

God Bless,
Caitlynn

I just hate how people think were not creating enviornmental crisis when mankind has been creating it for a while. It's weird how everyone thinks the global warming issue is at large an entire summary of mankinds negative impact on the earth.

mpok1519, do you ever provide any sources to back up your claims?


Yes it can. But we are highly unlikely to reach 12% concentration (the maximum animals have been acclimitised too; I'll provide the source if you absolutely demand it, but it's a side issue from the debate) from merely burning fossil fuels, are we?

I found a really good graph of global temperature over the past 100,000 years, but now I've lost it again. Googling 'global temperature graph' only gives me the temperature since 1860 - hardly long enough to decide whether humans are causing a significant increase in global temperature.

Why do you insist we're not killing ourselves by killing our enviornment? Maybe we won't get to twelve percent; dramatic climate hange as a result of trapped uv rays (co2 and other pollutants tend to dissallow for the ability for uv rays to radiate off and out of earths atmosphere) would have already killed us off long before the total concentration of the earths atmosphere to reach twelve percent.

I'm very skeptical that people could tolerate an atmosphere of ten or nine percent carbon dioxide in the long run. Old ladies would be dropping like flies if the concentration levels world wide suddenly spiked that high

I'm not going to trust people who don't correct for switching methods (BTW, the graph has been discredited for that reason).

That graph doesn't accurately represent how much we've poisoned the earth. Did you know that if you live in aniston Alabama you'll get cancer jus from living there long enough bc it's so polluted?

People eventually get cancer? Wow. I never new that.

Read up on Aniston Alabama; just living there can give you cancer from all the pollutants from the local chemical plant.

Yea people get cancer; many times from exposure to harmful compounds. Compounds were allowed to dump into rivers lakes streams and drinking water sources.

blah blah blah... i also don't understand why this is a debate thread. whether or not it is real or man-made, it wouldn't hurt to try to cut back on emissions or whatever else we perceive to be damaging this planet. it makes no sense to oppose something that could help regardless of what caused it or if it's even real.

My thoughts exactly.

Except that, in trying to cut emissions, we run the risk of damaging our standard of living. Gradually phasing out fossil fuels and switching to sources like Nuclear is the way to go, not drastic measures like banning coal.

not that i advocate this, but wouldn't banning coal force us to use some other power source? i'm not sure if anyone is trying to completely ban coal because it pretty much is the cheapest thing we can use right now.

Well, there is a scientist who claims that if we cut down emissions, we will cause global warming. According to him, it is the emissions that causes global cooling.

Well, theoretically it'd get cooler only to be warmed up even more the next cycle, which would be the opposite desired goal.

hahaha really?! wow this is such a ridiculous issue... kinda makes me wonder how credible his work is and whether or not there are some hidden agendas behind his claim.

This thread needs more science.

Global warming can cause both extreme heating and cooling, depending on the severity. By causing excess precipitation and cloud formation, warming can cause more sunlight to reflect from the planet, causing it to snow more than normal, further causing more sunlight to be reflected off of the, now snow-covered, earth--perpetuating the cycle. This last happened about a billion years ago.

Coupled with excess CO2 emissions, it could melt the reflective snow and ice that we already have as a permanent staple point on earth, followed by the trapping of more heat within the now CO2 suffocated atmosphere.

Were that to happen, we would experience a time of Venus-reminiscent rapid warming. However, the greenhouse gasses would have to have a continual source, so it probably wouldn't get to bad, once people were forced to straighten out.