V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What do you think?

1. Man causing it for sure?
2. Man possibly causing it?
3. Global warming happening but a natural cycle. We have had cycles before.
4. Don't think is is happening at all.
5. Don't really know!
6. Don't really care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
Would think in order to make a non biased conclusion, one would have to have some scientific education/research. When politicians get in the game, there's a hidden agenda for sure.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
you must have some opinion?

compressor#v said:
Would think in order to make a non biased conclusion, one would have to have some scientific education/research. When politicians get in the game, there's a hidden agenda for sure.
I'll bet most if honest are "don't care" or "don't know"
 

·
FOG
Joined
·
6,970 Posts
I'd lean toward #3, but I really don't know. I do know that some scientists, pols and Hollyweirdos say it's all man's fault. I don't agree with that. I also know not too many year ago, some of our most eminent scientists proclaimed we were heading into a new ice age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
towards 3 with some 2

I agree that there have been lots of previous cycles over the ages. But I have to consider the affects of all the things we put into the atmosphere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
I believe we are seeing a modest warming trend in the last 20 years.

I believe man-made global warming is a sound THEORY by a handful of scientists that are serious and truly believe in what they are saying.

I believe there are also a handful of scientists that are serious and truly believe the THEORY is wrong.

In between the two serious scientific investigations is a political activisim bordering on religious fanatacism that has no interest in science. They are in fact only in favor of pushing a political agenda by claiming a "consensus" among scientists in favor of the man-made theory. Disagreeing with these activists will get you branded as a "global-warming denier" (intentionally linking the global warming issue to those who deny the holocaust. ) In cooperation with a mass media that is feeding the "end-of-the-world" frenzy as a means to sell newspapers and 24-hour news, many politicians who otherwise couldn't spell "global" have stepped into the fray. On the other side are those with a vested interest in proving the theory wrong; oil companies, coal plants, car manufacturers, etc. For the overwhelming majority of both of these sides, science has nothing to do with the discussion.

IMO, the science is a long way from "settled". The long term history of the planet's climate does not support the theory because warming and cooling has happened periodically in the common era, and did not need mankind to make it happen. However, global effects by a single living organism on this planet is not only possible, there is plenty of evidence that it may have happened in the past. I can't say the theory is right or wrong because the science simply, IMO, doesn't support either side at this point. I lean away from the theory because, from what I have seen, it is based on a house of cards. As a person who has spent a lifetime as builder I know that a building built on a house of cards will eventually collapse.

In closing I STRONGLY support almost any effort that pushes an agenda of sustantainablilty. If we as a species don't move in a direction of sustainable existence on this planet it won't matter if Global Warming is real or not, because we won't be here long enough to find out. That being said, inventing science isn't necessary because there is plenty of real science out there to support the need to move to a sustainable existence.
http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm

And perhaps most importantly, when you see everyone pouring through the "wide gate" it's probably a good time to start looking for the "narrow" one. At the very least, think it through you self, and see if you don't start to see a trend in the discussion away from science and toward politcal activisim.

PS. The current weather pattern for a warmer Northeast this year is going to have a direct impact on my weather. My prediction for this winter is for a warmer than nomal winter with 200 inches of snowfall here. (yes i'm serious.) I think this is related to La Nina, not global climate change. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf
 

·
EASY DOES IT
Joined
·
8,914 Posts
Is the gamble worth it???

I believe we are accelerating whatever natural process is at work at this time or we could even be turning it upside down for that matter...the problem as I see it is that it's both foolhardy and the epitome of egotism to think we know it all one way or the other...

The facts as accepted by the majority:

We are polluting this planet faster than it can heal/clean itself.

We have contributed to several climate changes. (I repeat contributed)

IF we are promoting global warming to a dangerous level then ignoring it is deadly for us and our offspring.

IF we are not changing the climate as drastically as we fear we have to consider how long will it be before our pollution poisons us and does affect the climate.

There is little gray area...it seems the sides in this issue are polarized completely.

Those allegedly defending the planet would if they could disrupt society as we know it in the name of planet heath without regard to the needs of that same society.

Those that are in denial of the global warming issues aren't so much denying the issues as they are attempting to keep their personal lifestyle unaltered no matter the eventual consequences...


So the real question is...if the planet is warming (even in a normal cycle or not) AND considering the possible consequences to the human race should we still contribute even in a small way to that that scenario or are we too selfish???
 

·
Iron Butt, SS2000
Joined
·
3,399 Posts
swmnkdinthervr said:
I believe we are accelerating whatever natural process is at work at this time or we could even be turning it upside down for that matter...the problem as I see it is that it's both foolhardy and the epitome of egotism to think we know it all one way or the other...

The facts as accepted by the majority:

We are polluting this planet faster than it can heal/clean itself.

We have contributed to several climate changes. (I repeat contributed)

IF we are promoting global warming to a dangerous level then ignoring it is deadly for us and our offspring.

IF we are not changing the climate as drastically as we fear we have to consider how long will it be before our pollution poisons us and does affect the climate.

There is little gray area...it seems the sides in this issue are polarized completely.

Those allegedly defending the planet would if they could disrupt society as we know it in the name of planet heath without regard to the needs of that same society.

Those that are in denial of the global warming issues aren't so much denying the issues as they are attempting to keep their personal lifestyle unaltered no matter the eventual consequences...


So the real question is...if the planet is warming (even in a normal cycle or not) AND considering the possible consequences to the human race should we still contribute even in a small way to that that scenario or are we too selfish???

Swimm, I think you have hit the nail squarely. Too selfish.
OK, I'll edit... You kind of asked two questions at the end of your post. Yes we need to change directions. Will we succeed in that, hmmm, I'm not sure about that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
455 Posts
Problem is that there may be ONE scientist that says it is not man made..or maybe 40% thinks it or 60%..Buttom line is that SOME says the Climate change is man made and some says it isn't...... We normal non-scientist mortals can only listen - and then we form our own oppinion.. But do we form it based on facts or do we form it based on what we want to hear ??

I either case I sure do not hope it's man made and that we wake up one day realizing it after it's too late
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
swmnkdinthervr said:
I believe we are accelerating whatever natural process is at work at this time or we could even be turning it upside down for that matter...the problem as I see it is that it's both foolhardy and the epitome of egotism to think we know it all one way or the other...

The facts as accepted by the majority:

We are polluting this planet faster than it can heal/clean itself.

We have contributed to several climate changes. (I repeat contributed)

IF we are promoting global warming to a dangerous level then ignoring it is deadly for us and our offspring.

IF we are not changing the climate as drastically as we fear we have to consider how long will it be before our pollution poisons us and does affect the climate.

There is little gray area...it seems the sides in this issue are polarized completely.

Those allegedly defending the planet would if they could disrupt society as we know it in the name of planet heath without regard to the needs of that same society.

Those that are in denial of the global warming issues aren't so much denying the issues as they are attempting to keep their personal lifestyle unaltered no matter the eventual consequences...


So the real question is...if the planet is warming (even in a normal cycle or not) AND considering the possible consequences to the human race should we still contribute even in a small way to that that scenario or are we too selfish???
Riverswimmer, as it relates to Global Warming only; can you honestly say that you know how to keep from "contributing" to the normal cycle? Can you honestly say that you know that whatever you do may actually make a difference? Can you honestly say that you know that doing something isn't worse than doing nothing?

I don't think you can honestly say yes to any of those questions. IMO you'd be guessing at best.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Great response

DJW said:
I believe we are seeing a modest warming trend in the last 20 years.

I believe man-made global warming is a sound THEORY by a handful of scientists that are serious and truly believe in what they are saying.

I believe there are also a handful of scientists that are serious and truly believe the THEORY is wrong.

In between the two serious scientific investigations is a political activism bordering on religious fanaticism that has no interest in science. They are in fact only in favor of pushing a political agenda by claiming a "consensus" among scientists in favor of the man-made theory. Disagreeing with these activists will get you branded as a "global-warming denier" (intentionally linking the global warming issue to those who deny the holocaust. ) In cooperation with a mass media that is feeding the "end-of-the-world" frenzy as a means to sell newspapers and 24-hour news, many politicians who otherwise couldn't spell "global" have stepped into the fray. On the other side are those with a vested interest in proving the theory wrong; oil companies, coal plants, car manufacturers, etc. For the overwhelming majority of both of these sides, science has nothing to do with the discussion.

IMO, the science is a long way from "settled". The long term history of the planet's climate does not support the theory because warming and cooling has happened periodically in the common era, and did not need mankind to make it happen. However, global effects by a single living organism on this planet is not only possible, there is plenty of evidence that it may have happened in the past. I can't say the theory is right or wrong because the science simply, IMO, doesn't support either side at this point. I lean away from the theory because, from what I have seen, it is based on a house of cards. As a person who has spent a lifetime as builder I know that a building built on a house of cards will eventually collapse.

In closing I STRONGLY support almost any effort that pushes an agenda of sustantainablilty. If we as a species don't move in a direction of sustainable existence on this planet it won't matter if Global Warming is real or not, because we won't be here long enough to find out. That being said, inventing science isn't necessary because there is plenty of real science out there to support the need to move to a sustainable existence.
http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm

And perhaps most importantly, when you see everyone pouring through the "wide gate" it's probably a good time to start looking for the "narrow" one. At the very least, think it through you self, and see if you don't start to see a trend in the discussion away from science and toward political activism.

PS. The current weather pattern for a warmer Northeast this year is going to have a direct impact on my weather. My prediction for this winter is for a warmer than normal winter with 200 inches of snowfall here. (yes I'm serious.) I think this is related to La Nina, not global climate change. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf
I tend to believe from my own reading and research that the sun causes this but I too like the idea of sustainability, and not relying on foreign energy.

Setting aside my like or dislike for Al Gore his movie had many errors and many unfounded assumptions.

The one inconvenient truth I'd like to see addressed is population growth. only a few years back we had 200 million people and now we have 300 million. 100 million more people is 50% more pollution, more energy consumption, more food to grow, etc etc.

I think china has some views that are necessary on this population issue but their methods are a bit draconian.
 

·
EASY DOES IT
Joined
·
8,914 Posts
DJW said:
Riverswimmer, as it relates to Global Warming only; can you honestly say that you know how to keep from "contributing" to the normal cycle? Can you honestly say that you know that whatever you do may actually make a difference? Can you honestly say that you know that doing something isn't worse than doing nothing?

I don't think you can honestly say yes to any of those questions. IMO you'd be guessing at best.
You answer a question with a question...I do my best in most cases to answer what is asked of me unless presented with this scenario...None of what you're pointing out directly addresses what I posted other than to skate around the question...that's my humble opinion...:yes: :laugh:


Other than you're response this post will be largely ignored unless this %[email protected] a little because it's way easier to overlook anything remotely challenging to your way of thinking rather than considering the plausibility of the idea. Jus' sayin'
 

·
FOG
Joined
·
6,970 Posts
roofeditor said:
The one inconvenient truth I'd like to see addressed is population growth. only a few years back we had 200 million people and now we have 300 million. 100 million more people is 50% more pollution, more energy consumption, more food to grow, etc etc.

I think china has some views that are necessary on this population issue but their methods are a bit draconian.
You are absolutely correct. Overpopulation is one of the top problems the world faces today. You're also right....nobody wants to believe it or talk about it or do anything about it.
 

·
EASY DOES IT
Joined
·
8,914 Posts
trooper113 said:
You are absolutely correct. Overpopulation is one of the top problems the world faces today. You're also right....nobody wants to believe it or talk about it or do anything about it.
You're both right in addressing overpopulation...but that would also involve discussions of both birth control and abortion...subjects of which everyone seems to know exactly how everyone else should think but rarely apply it to reality or action...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
It is the elephant in the room

swmnkdinthervr said:
You're both right in addressing overpopulation...but that would also involve discussions of both birth control and abortion...subjects of which everyone seems to know exactly how everyone else should think but rarely apply it to reality or action...
That neither party will even attempt to discuss. It (population explosion) concerns me with some basis for reality much more so than suspect claims of global warming. Even if you assume man is causing global warming which is a big jump, than you would along that same premise have to admit doubling the population would double the global warming.

It is there and it's not going away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
roofeditor said:
That neither party will even attempt to discuss. It (population explosion) concerns me with some basis for reality much more so than suspect claims of global warming. Even if you assume man is causing global warming which is a big jump, than you would along that same premise have to admit doubling the population would double the global warming.

It is there and it's not going away.
My problem with the discussion of "over"-population is that it is always defined as other people's children. The next person I meet that says "I don't want my children to give me grandchildren," will be the first.

The fact is that no one in this country knows what overpopulation is until you have spent some time in Japan. The Japanese define what is possible in terms of a successful population per square mile. Example: 35,000 people/sq mile currently living in Tokyo. NYC by comparison 8,000/sq mile, LA: 3,500 or Dallas 1,000.

How can you start pointing at the people in Dallas and using them as an example of overcrowing when they are 1/35th the density of Tokyo? Our US sensiblities regarding space isn't typical on this planet. IMO overpopulation in this country usually means that we think the highways are jammed. But is that because every American believe he has the God-given right to power 3 tons of steel from his driveway to work by himself every morning?

The rest of the world doesn't believe that every person needs 1 acre of green grass and a tractor to be able to mow it. Or a 2000 sq ft housing a family of 3 people and a dog. When you can define to me what overpopulaiton means, i'll be ready to discuss it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
knuck, Ask 10 people what their definition of progress is and likely you'll get 10 different answers. You know the old saying "can't stop progress" so it can't really be stifled unless it meets ones definition/perception. Then it's only in "their mind". As far as taxes are concerned in my 40+ years of employment, my percentage has not decreased, keeps getting larger.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,710 Posts
what will the CHILDREN be saying in the future

compressor#v said:
knuck, Ask 10 people what their definition of progress is and likely you'll get 10 different answers. You know the old saying "can't stop progress" so it can't really be stifled unless it meets ones definition/perception. Then it's only in "their mind". As far as taxes are concerned in my 40+ years of employment, my percentage has not decreased, keeps getting larger.
Her are some pictures that show the one-sided education of the next generation, a 4th grade or younger.
These drawings show clearly what view point is correct for them. They are not allowed to understand the difference of opinion.





The second photo shows the earth flooded if "global warming " is not stopped.
They scare the heck out of these young minds, when they're older you will have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

Well on second thought, when they see the world has not been flooded, they'll see how wrong the lessons were!

By the way, your %age of taxes, what is the high number you will tolerate?
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top