Curse

Sir Franz · May 16, 2009, 06:50 PM // 18:50

Global Warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Irrefutable evidence has shown this to be true, however the debate as to how much it is a human driven event or natural is still somewhat murky. What we do know is that if you add greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, H2O, etc) into a closed system (nothing truly is but that's semantics) such as a pair of greenhouses with a constant light source and changing nothing else between them, the temperature will be higher in the one with the gasses (and that is what we are doing with burning coal, oil and gas) but earth is not a closed system as the suns output changes and natural events can cause unexpected effects (like if Greenland where to melt the gulf stream could move south and cause Europe to freeze or more precipitation in the form of snow could reflect more light away from the earth creating a local cooling effect). Then there's the fact Global Warming is uneven so that it might get colder in one area (say Arizona) but could warm in another (say the arctic) but the MAT (mean average temperature) of the world goes up.

Global Warming is not a doomsday event for the earth but it could be for human civilization, as civilization requires stability in the food supply in order for specialized jobs like sovereign, bureaucrat, artist, etc... to exist. in a higher temperature world weather events(hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, etc) would be more common and extreme causing farming and herding to fail much more frequantly (fishing is already starting to fail but that's another story only partly caused by Global Warming).

@Theocrat Overpopulation: Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration. I do agree that we(as a species) are not in all places on the earth overcrowded(physically) we are do meet 2 of the three points in the definition above. Overfishing, factory farming, and our mining practices are damaging the long term health of our ecosystem and we are depleting our natural resources faster then they can be replaced (forests, water, soil, etc). Sure we could all ration food and live in metropolises like New york city population density and the vast amount of the earth could be freed up so we could support 20 or so billion people but as it stands now we do in my mind met the definition above.

Quote:

psst drill Alaska.

psst drill rocky mountains.

Right the last thing we need now is more Black crack, Arabian arsenic because that's how we solved the drug problem by allowing drugs to be cheap and easy to get

.

PS the media does not have a liberal bias that is a myth.

Kumu Honua · May 16, 2009, 08:09 PM // 20:09

The problem with "Irrefutable" evidence is that the data is listed for only a 200 year period.

Before that 200 year period the entire earth was frozen. It was called the Ice Age. Amazing that.

How can you say that the high temperatures simply are not a function of the Earths own climate changes? You can't. Neither can that evidence. Especially since the entire 200 year numbers only fluctuate a single degree.

As for "Black Crack" we do indeed need more. We need alternative fuels, but we are STILL dependant on oil. So lets get that oil, keep prices low, and with the money we save not buying oil from enemies, we can focus on those alternatives at a pace that doesn't increase the costs because we rush into things.

Again, zealotry doesn't help, and if you don't think that the media is biased then you are as blind as a bat. It's nothing BUT biased. Biased on both sides. Those with liberal views watch MSNBC, those with conservative views watch Fox. Both sides call each other biased media.

Hanging Man · May 16, 2009, 08:41 PM // 20:41

I think global warming is more of a threat than people realize.
Just look at pictures of Mt. Kilimanjaro, how the top has been shaved off in the past years

thats not natural.
Global Warming is a serious ass issue.

let the flaming begin ya'll

Master Fuhon · May 16, 2009, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Franz

Overfishing, factory farming, and our mining practices are damaging the long term health of our ecosystem and we are depleting our natural resources faster then they can be replaced (forests, water, soil, etc).

That's a good point. When I first read his explanation, I was thinking that overpopulation was determined based on resources, but I was thinking of resources more important than space. It's a better point to not think about resources as something that can disappear, but as things that exist within an equilibrium of some sort. And in that matter, overpopulation wouldn't be something that could be felt by looking at current numbers. It would be measured by checking how fast the population is growing and whatever trends come out of that growth.

I would define overpopulation as a problem based on population expansion rates disrupting the previous equilibriums that existed. Overpopulation is also a social problem related to our inability to cope with the population and whatever things we need to accomodate the new people: things like health care don't just expand as the population does. Global warming is a different issue that can be probably be measured by matter-of-fact-science.

So based on the definition I gave it, overpopulation is always a problem that we are dealing with. So I don't agree with a statement that it doesn't exist. Claims about global warming are only as good as the data reports, but the effects of human beings can be felt locally if not globally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Franz

PS the media does not have a liberal bias that is a myth.

This is not true in the United States. The country as a whole has moved towards liberal bias in personal definition, and so the media reflects it. It's gotten to the point where people don't even know what the definition of conservative is: and they attribute non-regulation economic policies to being conservativism. The original conservative viewpoint was actually 'non-interference'. Interference is only equivalent to regulation from a point of view skewed liberal minded. True conservatives are also 'self-regulating', never unregulated. Many people are only ignorant of the biases they hold because they are unaware of how the other side defines words.

The article you linked is a self-confirming bias of it's own, from the reverse viewpoint. Self-unaware people are unable to recognize that they have biases, and they falsely report themselves as neutral. There are many issues where neutrality cannot exist; a person cannot assume a neutral stance on any issue that has been polarized into forming two sides. Most political issues are purposely polarized into black or white issues that people cannot be unbiased about.

A11Eur0 · May 16, 2009, 09:05 PM // 21:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Pwnd, do you truly not believe in global warming?

It's almost like not believing in evolution, or are you a creationist too?

Do you seriously believe in Global Warming? It's almost like believing in God and that Obama is actually doing a good job.

See, the thing with the earth's temperature changing is the fact that the temperature has only changed a very tiny bit in the past 100 years...but if you use the hockeystick diagram that everyone just runs to, it looks huge because of the VERY SMALL PERIOD OF TIME it represents. Also, the fact that prior to 100 years ago, there was no way of quantifying the average temperature of the earth...it's estimated due to ice core logs and C14 levels in the CO2 trapped in that ice. It's got HUGE error bars for everything prior to 100 years ago....and when you factor in those error bars, the "drastic change" you're witnessing (1 degree centigrade...um during the Jurassic the average global temp was 10*C higher than current) doesn't look that drastic any more.

Here's the "hockeystick" graph everyone is clamoring over:

Here's the same information with error bars and alternate readings:

Not so drastic especially considering the scales don't go back even to the times of Christ...and the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.

MMSDome · May 16, 2009, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Franz why are you commenting on my post as if you think i'm trying to solve global warming? I am answering to the people that think we are running out of Earth's resources and need to find alternative fuels, not the people that worried about the world exploding in flames.

Zahr Dalsk · May 16, 2009, 10:07 PM // 22:07

I've put together a handy chart to help people visualize the current status of global warming and its effect on our planet.

Empress Amarox · May 17, 2009, 03:57 AM // 03:57

If you don't believe in temperatures rising, then perhaps you will at least believe that in our current period, we are living through the fastest Mass Extinction Event the world has ever known. Never before have so many species died so fast, and it is because of us. Though, by the time you've reached the end of this, hopefully you aren't so naive to still reject it, when there is insurmountable proof.

There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year — which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this "Sixth Extinction" — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.

Extinction in the past

The major global biotic turnovers were all caused by physical events that lay outside the normal climatic and other physical disturbances which species, and entire ecosystems, experience and survive. What caused them?
The previous mass extinctions were due to natural causes.

First major extinction (c. 440 mya):
Climate change (relatively severe and sudden global cooling) seems to have been at work at the first of these-the end-Ordovician mass extinction that caused such pronounced change in marine life (little or no life existed on land at that time). 25% of families lost (a family may consist of a few to thousands of species).
Second major extinction (c. 370 mya):
The next such event, near the end of the Devonian Period, may or may not have been the result of global climate change. 19% of families lost.
Third major Extinction (c. 245 mya):
Scenarios explaining what happened at the greatest mass extinction event of them all (so far, at least!) at the end of the Permian Period have been complex amalgams of climate change perhaps rooted in plate tectonics movements. Very recently, however, evidence suggests that a bolide impact similar to the end-Cretaceous event may have been the cause. 54% of families lost.
Fourth major extinction (c. 210 mya):
The event at the end of the Triassic Period, shortly after dinosaurs and mammals had first evolved, also remains difficult to pin down in terms of precise causes. 23% of families lost.
Fifth major extinction (c. 65 mya):
Most famous, perhaps, was the most recent of these events at the end-Cretaceous. It wiped out the remaining terrestrial dinosaurs and marine ammonites, as well as many other species across the phylogenetic spectrum, in all habitats sampled from the fossil record. Consensus has emerged in the past decade that this event was caused by one (possibly multiple) collisions between Earth and an extraterrestrial bolide (probably cometary). Some geologists, however, point to the great volcanic event that produced the Deccan traps of India as part of the chain of physical events that disrupted ecosystems so severely that many species on land and sea rapidly succumbed to extinction. 17% of families lost.

How is the Sixth Extinction different from previous events?
The current mass extinction is caused by humans.

At first glance, the physically caused extinction events of the past might seem to have little or nothing to tell us about the current Sixth Extinction, which is a patently human-caused event. For there is little doubt that humans are the direct cause of ecosystem stress and species destruction in the modern world through such activities as:

transformation of the landscape
overexploitation of species
pollution
the introduction of alien species

And because Homo sapiens is clearly a species of animal (however behaviorally and ecologically peculiar an animal), the Sixth Extinction would seem to be the first recorded global extinction event that has a biotic, rather than a physical, cause. We are bringing about massive changes in the environment.

Yet, upon further reflection, human impact on the planet is a direct analogue of the Cretaceous cometary collision. Sixty-five million years ago that extraterrestrial impact — through its sheer explosive power, followed immediately by its injections of so much debris into the upper reaches of the atmosphere that global temperatures plummeted and, most critically, photosynthesis was severely inhibited — wreaked havoc on the living systems of Earth. That is precisely what human beings are doing to the planet right now: humans are causing vast physical changes on the planet.

What is the Sixth Extinction?

We can divide the Sixth Extinction into two discrete phases:

Phase One began when the first modern humans began to disperse to different parts of the world about 100,000 years ago.
Phase Two began about 10,000 years ago when humans turned to agriculture.

Humans began disrupting the environment as soon as they appeared on Earth.

The first phase began shortly after Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and the anatomically modern humans began migrating out of Africa and spreading throughout the world. Humans reached the middle east 90,000 years ago. They were in Europe starting around 40,000 years ago. Neanderthals, who had long lived in Europe, survived our arrival for less than 10,000 years, but then abruptly disappeared — victims, according to many paleoanthropologists, of our arrival through outright warfare or the more subtle, though potentially no less devastating effects, of being on the losing side of ecological competition.

Everywhere, shortly after modern humans arrived, many (especially, though by no means exclusively, the larger) native species typically became extinct. Humans were like bulls in a China shop:

They disrupted ecosystems by overhunting game species, which never experienced contact with humans before.
And perhaps they spread microbial disease-causing organisms as well.

Wherever early humans migrated, other species became extinct. The fossil record attests to human destruction of ecosystems:

Humans arrived in large numbers in North America roughly 12,500 years ago-and sites revealing the butchering of mammoths, mastodons and extinct buffalo are well documented throughout the continent. The demise of the bulk of the La Brea tar pit Pleistocene fauna coincided with our arrival.
The Caribbean lost several of its larger species when humans arrived some 8000 years ago.
Extinction struck elements of the Australian megafauna much earlier-when humans arrived some 40,000 years ago. Madagascar-something of an anomaly, as humans only arrived there two thousand years ago-also fits the pattern well: the larger species (elephant birds, a species of hippo, plus larger lemurs) rapidly disappeared soon after humans arrived.

Indeed only in places where earlier hominid species had lived (Africa, of course, but also most of Europe and Asia) did the fauna, already adapted to hominid presence, survive the first wave of the Sixth Extinction pretty much intact. The rest of the world’s species, which had never before encountered hominids in their local ecosystems, were as naively unwary as all but the most recently arrived species (such as Vermilion Flycatchers) of the Galapagos Islands remain to this day.

Why does the Sixth Extinction continue?
The invention of agriculture accelerated the pace of the Sixth Extinction.

Phase two of the Sixth Extinction began around 10,000 years ago with the invention of agriculture-perhaps first in the Natufian culture of the Middle East. Agriculture appears to have been invented several different times in various different places, and has, in the intervening years, spread around the entire globe.

Agriculture represents the single most profound ecological change in the entire 3.5 billion-year history of life. With its invention:

humans did not have to interact with other species for survival, and so could manipulate other species for their own use
humans did not have to adhere to the ecosystem’s carrying capacity, and so could overpopulate

Humans do not live with nature but outside it.

Homo Sapiens became the first species to stop living inside local ecosystems. All other species, including our ancestral hominid ancestors, all pre-agricultural humans, and remnant hunter-gatherer societies still extant exist as semi-isolated populations playing specific roles (i.e., have “niches”) in local ecosystems. This is not so with post-agricultural revolution humans, who in effect have stepped outside local ecosystems. Indeed, to develop agriculture is essentially to declare war on ecosystems - converting land to produce one or two food crops, with all other native plant species all now classified as unwanted “weeds” — and all but a few domesticated species of animals now considered as pests.

The total number of organisms within a species is limited by many factors-most crucial of which is the “carrying capacity” of the local ecosystem: given the energetic needs and energy-procuring adaptations of a given species, there are only so many squirrels, oak trees and hawks that can inhabit a given stretch of habitat. Agriculture had the effect of removing the natural local-ecosystem upper limit of the size of human populations. Though crops still fail regularly, and famine and disease still stalk the land, there is no doubt that agriculture in the main has had an enormous impact on human population size:
Earth can’t sustain the trend in human population growth. It is reaching its limit in carrying capacity.

Estimates vary, but range between 1 and 10 million people on earth 10,000 years ago.
There are now over 6 billion people.
The numbers continue to increase logarithmically — so that there will be 8 billion by 2020.
There is presumably an upper limit to the carrying capacity of humans on earth — of the numbers that agriculture can support — and that number is usually estimated at between 13-15 billion, though some people think the ultimate numbers might be much higher.

This explosion of human population, especially in the post-Industrial Revolution years of the past two centuries, coupled with the unequal distribution and consumption of wealth on the planet, is the underlying cause of the Sixth Extinction. There is a vicious cycle:
Overpopulation, invasive species, and overexploitation are fueling the extinction.

More lands are cleared and more efficient production techniques (most recently engendered largely through genetic engineering) to feed the growing number of humans — and in response, the human population continues to expand.
Higher fossil energy use is helping agriculture spread, further modifying the environment.
Humans continue to fish (12 of the 13 major fisheries on the planet are now considered severely depleted) and harvest timber for building materials and just plain fuel, pollution, and soil erosion from agriculture creates dead zones in fisheries (as in the Gulf of Mexico)
While the human Diaspora has meant the spread, as well, of alien species that more often than not thrive at the detriment of native species. For example, invasive species have contributed to 42% of all threatened and endangered species in the U.S.

Can conservation measures stop the Sixth Extinction?
Only 10% of the world’s species survived the third mass extinction. Will any survive this one?

The world’s ecosystems have been plunged into chaos, with some conservation biologists thinking that no system, not even the vast oceans, remains untouched by human presence. Conservation measures, sustainable development, and, ultimately, stabilization of human population numbers and consumption patterns seem to offer some hope that the Sixth Extinction will not develop to the extent of the third global extinction, some 245 mya, when 90% of the world’s species were lost.

Though it is true that life, so incredibly resilient, has always recovered (though after long lags) after major extinction spasms, it is only after whatever has caused the extinction event has dissipated. That cause, in the case of the Sixth Extinction, is ourselves — Homo sapiens. This means we can continue on the path to our own extinction, or, preferably, we modify our behavior toward the global ecosystem of which we are still very much a part. The latter must happen before the Sixth Extinction can be declared over, and life can once again rebound.

Source: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newf...eldredge2.html

Kumu Honua · May 17, 2009, 04:21 AM // 04:21

Wall of useless text.

There have been 5 other events that wiped out even more species than are being wiped out now. None of those were man made. Not even man existing.

Why is the 6th supposed extinction event caused by man? Just because we are here? I doubt that.

I believe it's Darwin culling the herd.

Snow Bunny · May 17, 2009, 05:56 AM // 05:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Franz

PS the media does not have a liberal bias that is a myth.

No, you're dumb.

Only Fox news is conservative, and Fox is just as off the wall right as MSNBC and CNN are left.

Empress Amarox · May 17, 2009, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumu Honua

Wall of useless text.

There have been 5 other events that wiped out even more species than are being wiped out now. None of those were man made. Not even man existing.

Why is the 6th supposed extinction event caused by man? Just because we are here? I doubt that.

I believe it's Darwin culling the herd.

It's stupid posts like these that is the reason I hadn't posted in here. If you can't understand my previous post and want to babble on like that, I may as well not even be in here.

I posted, you can re-read it if you want. But, I'm out.

MirkoTeran · May 17, 2009, 05:55 PM // 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

I've put together a handy chart to help people visualize the current status of global warming and its effect on our planet.

And to put it in video:
I don't believe in Global Warming

Cherng Butter · May 19, 2009, 03:27 AM // 03:27

It baffles me that some of you guys don't believe in global warming. The human presence is horrible for the environment, like Empress said, and if you guys remain ignorant to that, then it is a sad situation indeed. Perhaps it's not as dire in the grand scheme of things as the media portrays, but we are undoubtedly heading in the WRONG direction, which is, well...bad.

I suppose we could colonize the Moon though.

Kumu Honua · May 19, 2009, 09:25 AM // 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

It's stupid posts like these that is the reason I hadn't posted in here. If you can't understand my previous post and want to babble on like that, I may as well not even be in here.

I posted, you can re-read it if you want. But, I'm out.

Sadly. I read the entire article. Including your simple cut and paste without your OWN thoughts on it.

Spouting something that one person says does not make it true. In fact, many many of the "Facts" that people like that say have been proven untrue.

For example: CO2 levels. The permafrost has shown that there were levels FAR above levels we see today in PRE-INDUSTRIAL times.

So to say that "We" cause global warming is not a fact. It's a theory that is being destroyed left and right. Breeds of frogs going "Extinct" and magically having a population boom is my favorite because it was in my home state.

I simply don't listen to zealotry and listen to BOTH sides.

That's why I say things like "Save the whales, but a species going extinct is Darwinism. I won't shed a tear". Or "Clean air? Great. Just don't rush into crap solutions that have crap results but cost 7 zillion dollars for the rush."

I have no problem with recycling, and looking for alt fuels, or harnessing tidal energy, but combine that with MORE DRILLING for the fuel we need NOW, add nuclear plants (This ought to throw the nuts into a frenzy of stupidity), and THEN work on other options at a pace that isn't set by chicken little.

A11Eur0 · May 19, 2009, 11:55 PM // 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

Fruit Punch flavored Kool Aid

Pre-historic extinctions have the not-so-unique distinction of being just that: PRE-HISTORIC. All we know about how many species died off is what we see in the fossil record. What if the vast majority of species that died off left no fossils? No really hard parts to leave impressions, overly organic fleshy creatures that were utterly and completely destroyed, sea-going or swamp creatures that simply "dissolved" in acid-rich stagnant waters or akin to the "bog bodies" of more recent days(human bodies that drowned or were disposed of in stagnant water literally get disintegrated...bones turn to mush)...nothing is spared and nothing remains to be preserved or replaced as fossil remains. How about those which simply evolved into something more modern? Two groups of similar animals meet up, mingle, and procreate...genes get mixed, recessive genes get lost, new species emerges. That's a natural non-environmentally-dictated extinction of two species with the creation of one.

My point is this: we do not know at all how many species truly died off. Natural selection is a bitch...if you can't adapt, you lose, and you die. That's how it is.

Your entire post demonizes the human race...saying we're parasites on this earth. Um...that makes you one as well. Why don't you help your cause and go rid Mother Earth of one of its assailants?

Faer · May 20, 2009, 05:39 PM // 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumu Honua

add nuclear plants

THIS.

Nuclear power is seriously one of our best currently available solutions.

awesome sauce · May 22, 2009, 01:14 AM // 01:14

Global warming has never been an extinction event. The problem for humans is drought, drastic climate shifts and severe storms, flooding of costal regions, and numerous other problems that haven't been identified yet. Millions of people are dying in central africa due to shifts in the rain pattern. The frequency of severe hurricanes may have increased due to the fact that more solar radiation is fueling them in the gulf.

In addition to that, at this moment, hundreds of thousands of species are endangered. Current estimates have said that as many as half of the worlds species may be gone within the next 100 years.

If you don't care, it's probably because it hasn't affected you yet.

If you don't believe in global warming... well, you're an idiot.

some guy · May 22, 2009, 01:35 AM // 01:35

Water vapor is a green house gas! Really it is, water vapor contributes to a lot of the greenhouse gas effect of the planet.

LET'S LAUNCH ALL THE WATER INTO SPACE SO WE CAN'T DRINK AND EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET WILL DIE OF DEHYDRATION DIE! HEY AT LEAST WE STOPPED A FAKE CLIMATE CRISIS!

Glacial core drillings and fossil records and also decades of meteorology records have shown that the climates changes all the time, not just due to polution and stuff.

For example during the 1950s after WWII, an industrial boom occured and we would expect more pollution thus higher tempratures, but instead the temprature at that time lowered. It was wayy lower than the prewar depression era with no factories running. Fossil records have shown that there are trends in the climate during many of the eras that have no relations with human activity. The CO2 correlation with climate change just does not add up with the records.

The earth simply have climate changes and it does seem natural and it seems to be the only possible explanation. Global warming does occur to a small extent, but it's not as bad as the media blows it out of proportion. With the media creating hysteria, it creates panic.

The problem right now is that people just believe what the media tells them cough Al Gore cough. Companies and governments are making huge profits like carbon tax and etc with this hysteria that is created by the meda. Yet nobody dare to say anything, and no politicians will say anything because they do not dare to go against the flow of the crowd.

I consider myself to be a heretic.

awesome sauce · May 22, 2009, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumu Honua

For example: CO2 levels. The permafrost has shown that there were levels FAR above levels we see today in PRE-INDUSTRIAL times.

Wrong. The highest ever recorder was around 300 ppm. Currently the air contains about 370 ppm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumu Honua

So to say that "We" cause global warming is not a fact. It's a theory that is being destroyed left and right. Breeds of frogs going "Extinct" and magically having a population boom is my favorite because it was in my home state.

There is no such thing as a "fact" in the scientific community. It's all theory. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is explained by theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory after rigorous testing and scrutiny by the scientific community.

Also, One instance where someone else was wrong doesn't prove you right. The fact is that hundreds of thousands of species are going extinct today due to drastic changes in their delicate environment. Most of the previous extinctions that you brought up have known or suspected causes, such as the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs in the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. The only reasonable cause we have for the current extinction is the rapid change in earth's climate, which is undeniably caused by humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kumu Honua

That's why I say things like "Save the whales, but a species going extinct is Darwinism. I won't shed a tear".

Great, so just kill off everything and leave only humans and cockroaches to survive. Sounds like a plan.

awesome sauce · May 22, 2009, 02:03 AM // 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by some guy

Water vapor is a green house gas! Really it is, water vapor contributes to a lot of the greenhouse gas effect of the planet.

LET'S LAUNCH ALL THE WATER INTO SPACE SO WE CAN'T DRINK AND EVERYONE ON THIS PLANET WILL DIE OF DEHYDRATION DIE! HEY AT LEAST WE STOPPED A FAKE CLIMATE CRISIS!

CO_2 is something we can control. Each molecule about a million times greater capacity to absorb light than water. For the reason you just stated, it would be ridiculous to control the amount of water in the atmosphere. It is much easier to control CO2

Quote:

Originally Posted by some guy

Glacial core drillings and fossil records and also decades of meteorology records have shown that the climates changes all the time, not just due to polution and stuff.

Yes, but never as rapidly as what we are seeing now. It normally takes thousands of years for the earth to warm as much as it has in the last couple hundred. The current climate crisis is actually happening on top of a normal interglaciation period, creating a potential super-interglaciation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by some guy

For example during the 1950s after WWII, an industrial boom occured and we would expect more pollution thus higher tempratures, but instead the temprature at that time lowered. It was wayy lower than the prewar depression era with no factories running. Fossil records have shown that there are trends in the climate during many of the eras that have no relations with human activity.

When pollution is first introduced into the atmosphere, it reflects solar radiation, causing the earth to cool. As that pollution is naturally dispersed, all that is left is the CO2, which causes warming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by some guy

The problem right now is that people just believe what the media tells them cough Al Gore cough. Companies and governments are making huge profits like carbon tax and etc with this hysteria that is created by the media. Yet nobody dare to say anything, and no politicians will say anything because they do not dare to go against the flow of the crowd.

Maybe, but the opposite is also true. People like you are pursuaded by unsubstantiated claims from propaganda sites and campaigns funded by corporations that make huge profits using their old unsustainable processes.