Global Climate Change (Natural or Man Made)

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bonedigger, Jan 31, 2007.


Climate Change - Natural or Caused by man

  1. Natural

    17 vote(s)
  2. Caused by Man

    10 vote(s)
  3. Other

    7 vote(s)
  1. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger Another Wandering Celt

    The question has come up repeatedly on virtually every forum in CyberLand. Here is CoinTalk's chance to chime in. Are the changes in the Earth's Climate the result of human activity or is it a natural cycling occurrence. Please vote :)
  2. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    More than likely it is a combination of natural occuring change and our pollution, the amount of muck we throw into the enviroment must have some affect and I doubt if it is a positive one. But as the earths climate has changed before (Ice ages etc) it can not all be put down to pollution.

    De Orc :D
  3. Drusus

    Drusus New Member need an answer for both...I think its a combo...
  4. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 New Member

    The earth is warming. No doubt about it. But this should be expected given that the sun is emitting more energy than it has in the past 11,000 years, the world is emerging from a mini-ice age that lasted from about 1350 to 1850, and there are normal cycles of warming and cooling throughout history with the last warm period being around the later part of the dark ages when it was slightly warmer than today. Back then, the historical evidence is that the earth suddenly cooled over a period of a few decades. It should shock noone that recent decades are slightly warmer than in the recent past. The consensus among governments and the scientists they employ is that this is man-made and a reason for them to exercise extraordinary control. Is this conclusion a surprise to anyone? But consensus isn't verification. Consensus used to hold that the earth was the center of the universe too.
  5. bqcoins

    bqcoins New Member

  6. Check_M_All

    Check_M_All New Member

    I vote other as being the option of "both". In large part I believe that weather and climate changes are natural and cyclical, but I do also believe that we have a great impact as well.

    Here's the fun thought that I've never really heard anyone else put out there, but I'll present anyway. People... forget about cars and factories and all that... what about people? Put a couple of people in a room. They're talking, having a good time. It's comfortable. Add a few more, then add a few more. Soon it gets hot, the air gets thick...

    Look at the rate our planet's population is growing. Each person added to the planet is essentially a 98 degree heat generator emitting carbon dioxide 24 hours a day... and as we all know, carbon dioxide is the "greenhouse gas". Could it actually be possible that we are becoming too many?
  7. De Orc

    De Orc Well-Known Member

    Then get them to eat a ton of beans A'la Blazing Saddles :D

    De Orc :whistle:
  8. Tom Maringer

    Tom Maringer New Member

    So Cloudsweeper... I don't want to misunderstand, considering that we had some misunderstandings on a previous thread. So just to be sure I am clear on what you're saying... your threefold contention is that:
    1. The earth IS warming... but...
    2. Humans have nothing to do with it... and...
    3. The scientific consensus about anthropogenic forcing of the earth's climate is the result of a huge conspiracy between thousands of scientists and governments in order to gain political power.

    Is that right? Sounds like that's what you're saying... just want to be sure.
  9. tonylynch

    tonylynch New Member

    I had to go with other too. Part of it is the planet coming out of the brief (geologically speaking) period of the Mini Ice Age. Another part has to be anthropogenic, the stuff pumped out by man's activities can't but have an effect. I do think there are those that are overstating the level of warming and that it will be in the lower ranges...too many 'Chicken Littles' out there with political agendas on the issue. Unfortunately, the anthropgenic nature of global warming has become the current dogma for climitalogical science and whenever science gets politicized objectivity goes out the window. The present day 'Guardians of Truth and Knowledge' are marshalling their forces to ensure that data and observations that present opposite findings will see scarce light and be quashed without debate or review. Talk of decertifying meteorologists or putting scientists that present opposite findings on trial ala Nuremburg are but a couple of examples.
  10. tonylynch

    tonylynch New Member

    And scientific consensus is always correct. Rocks cannot fall from the sky, catastrophic events cannot have an effect on evolution, 'impact' craters are caused by cryptovolcanic forces, the sun and planets revolve around the earth, the continents are static and unchanging, ice ages can't happen, Western 'civilization' is vastly superior to all others, the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs were lethargic creatures doomed from the start, etc, ad nauseum. These were all believed by thousands of scientists and governments at one time, but that doesn't make them correct. Odds are, with the current observational data, that the planet is going to continue to warm for some time. To what degree? Probably less than what some would have us believe.
  11. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Tony, prognostications such as the ones you've cited are the reasons they called it the Dark Ages. Let me be the first to welcome you to the post Renaissance period. :hail:

    The ironic part is the only reason you feel comfortable mocking earlier beliefs is because of the science you are ridiculing at the same time.
  12. tonylynch

    tonylynch New Member

    My ridicule is at the apparent belief that scientific consensus is always 100% correct, while history has shown the opposite to be true. By the way most of those were held to be fact well into the Industrial Age and some even made it into the Space Age, so I guess they do qualify for being post-renaissance. I've stated my belief on Global Warming, but to quell all debate on the subject is counterproductive.
  13. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 New Member

    You have one and two correct. Three is twisted. I would agree with the part about governments around the world taking advantage of the situation to increase their influence on society. That's what governments do, and I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with that. When I said that consensus is not verification, I meant just that and to read any further into it by assuming conspiracy theories would be incorrect. It just means what it says. Tonylynch's post illustrates the problem with examples better than I stated it.
  14. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    You're absolutely correct that many of the misconceptions did linger well into and beyond the Renaissance period. Coincidentally, so will the belief that global warming is an exclusively naturally occurring phenomenon for some small percent of the human population even while the rest of us find this belief to be dangerously stupid. But what-ya-gonna-do? :hatch:
  15. tonylynch

    tonylynch New Member

    Just my part, driving a low emission vehicle, using low wattage flourescent lighting, energy efficient appliances, etc. Yet, I will always champion others right to be heard, even if I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes it's fun playing the devil's advocate.
  16. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    You got that right Tony! :thumb:
  17. acanthite

    acanthite New Member

    Let's dispense with arguments about scientific data, one way or the other...I'm a gonna say that our activities constitute the majority of the changes we are seeing today. And because I'm going to say this, I'm going to worry about it. And if I worry about it, I try to make a difference in my life to lessen the effects of my consumption. What do I lose if I'm wrong? Some of my luxuries for no good reason. Ohhhh, poor me, just think of all the fun I couldha had. But what if I decide to ignore it and its true?

    More importantly, in the latter case, how do I explain my logic to my child in 30 years, who must live with my decisions today?
  18. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    Very few people thnk this long term. Glad to see at least one of you guys is. :thumb:
  19. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 New Member

    So let me get this straight. You've decided to substitute believing for thinking, just in case? And you've actually made a conscious decision to make this a life-long worry? And you are concerned that your child will blame you someday for not doing enough to stop global warming, and this bothers you so much that you plan to alter your family's lifestyle?
  20. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    But don't you think that not believing in the possibility of global warming at our hands is somewhat motivated by convenience? I mean if you don't believe we are hurting our environment, you can just keep doing what you've been doing all along. You don't have to conserve, recycle, or take any inconvenient measures that may impact your comfortable lifestyle. It just seems like the easy way to look at the situation. :whistle:

Share This Page