Global Warming is NOT Manmade

Dude, please do a search before posting another GW thread. There are 98796785 of them right now, including one with the Mockton vid.
 
I noticed the word not in the title is in caps,so its got to be true.
 
Anyone who says that GW is not man made has his head so far up his own ......

Seriously, in the history of the Earth when has there ever been a species as destructive of the environment. Humans have decimated the rain forests, dumped chemicals into fresh and sea water alike, pumped harmful gasses into the atmosphere, but no, GW could not possibly be our fault.

What's the odds this guy has a big steak in businesses that are big contributors to pollution. And they give college degrees to twits like these.
 
Anyone who says that GW is not man made has his head so far up his own ......

Seriously, in the history of the Earth when has there ever been a species as destructive of the environment. Humans have decimated the rain forests, dumped chemicals into fresh and sea water alike, pumped harmful gasses into the atmosphere, but no, GW could not possibly be our fault.

What's the odds this guy has a big steak in businesses that are big contributors to pollution. And they give college degrees to twits like these.

not on the human scale, but throughout history animals have killed all their prey and so put themselves and their prey to extinction :), humans are just better at doing it.
 
True, but those animals didn't start cutting down trees and cr@p in the water that they drink. But like you said humans are better at driving life to extinction. Soon it may even be our own.
 
Do we want polluted rivers and sea's?
Answer: No.

Do we want polluted air?
Answer: No.

Do we want to waste energy or be as efficient as possible?
Answer: Yes.

So, who the heck gives a flying duck about all this global warming rubbish, something that is proving impossible to prove.
The world has to stop polluting our world, and it has to stop consuming non-renewable resources!

It's not even academic any more, it's now bordering on blatant stupid greed.
 
True, but those animals didn't start cutting down trees and cr@p in the water that they drink. But like you said humans are better at driving life to extinction. Soon it may even be our own.

Hippos and fish comes to mind :p
 
Do we want polluted rivers and sea's?
Answer: No.

Do we want polluted air?
Answer: No.

Do we want to waste energy or be as efficient as possible?
Answer: Yes.

So, who the heck gives a flying duck about all this global warming rubbish, something that is proving impossible to prove.
The world has to stop polluting our world, and it has to stop consuming non-renewable resources!

It's not even academic any more, it's now bordering on blatant stupid greed.

Global warming or climate change have become the battle ground for people who try and get rich out of it. It is not about doing the right thing any more, but who will make the most money to do their version of the right thing.
 
it has to stop consuming non-renewable resources!

Hilarious!

Sustainability: An Assault on Economics
http://mises.org/daily/3886

Go read now!

But deep down, there's something unsettling about the basic premise of sustainability. Sustainability advocates — let's call them "sustainists" — are damning in their fervor, poise, and rhetoric. Their ideology is pregnant with an accusation that the way things currently are is somehow unsustainable. There's an alarmism here which essentially claims, "there's a crisis, it's your fault for being ignorant, irrational, and greedy. You must do as we say to fix it, or we'll all die."

This alarmist crusade, which underlies the sustainability movement, should rankle people with an economic understanding of the world. A basic tenet of economics is that markets are self-correcting and orderly; prices indicate resource constraints and guide people in economizing on their use. Prices change as underlying supply and demand conditions change, inducing appropriate adjustments in consumption and production patterns. Prices channel the profit motive — a natural aspect of the human condition — into productive and innovative activities. In short, prices work.

Sustainists are either ignorant or in denial of this basic lesson. Either way, we economists have our work cut out for us.
 
Do we want polluted rivers and sea's?
Answer: No.

Do we want polluted air?
Answer: No.

Do we want to waste energy or be as efficient as possible?
Answer: Yes.

So, who the heck gives a flying duck about all this global warming rubbish, something that is proving impossible to prove.
The world has to stop polluting our world, and it has to stop consuming non-renewable resources!

It's not even academic any more, it's now bordering on blatant stupid greed.

That's one of the more sensible ideas I've heard on the subject.

Save the environment / whales / cute fluffy bunnies / stop polluting / preserve the environment because all those things are good things to do in and of themselves. Then one day when we have the dataand ability to figure out how much of an impact man has had on the naturally occuring climate change cycle - very little in my opinion - we can then start to figure out if we can actually do anything about it.

In the meantime keep your ****ing hands out of my wallet with your bull**** made up climate change taxes and obscenely stupid cap and trade schemes please.
 
The sad thing with many people is their ability to believe in what they want, but ignore every thing else. Just because some economist (that has a vested interest in insuring no one does anything about GW) says that GW is a load of BS, does not make it so.

It is very convenient to ignore our ecology, as long as we are not inconvenienced in anyway. But it is going to be a hell of an inconvenience when we no longer have breathable air, or no moree drinkable water. These are prime requisites of life are they not? with out these, we all die.

I will have no sympathy then, for those that have ignored and laughed at those who are trying to change this. It would be completely their own stupidity that has gotten them in the mess. Those that say the economy is more important are going to be very happy with it when they are dieing from a failed ecology, aren't they? And those that are saying that their is no pollution problem have their blinkers on so tight they can't see right in front of them.
 
Ignoring economic principles which solve the problem of scare resources shows complete ignorance as well.

In the meantime it is up to the individual to choose how to live as it always has been. If that means buying a car that uses lots of petrol then so be it. Since it is a resource becoming more and more scarce he will fork out more and more. That way eventually he will have to move.

If the person wants to choose a lighter car on fuel or use less electricity or go solar or whatever then good for them.

FORCING policies on people that are suppossed to help us do nothing concrete(Factual in terms of AGW) other than line the pockets of those who sell these ideas/products
 
That's one of the more sensible ideas I've heard on the subject.

Save the environment / whales / cute fluffy bunnies / stop polluting / preserve the environment because all those things are good things to do in and of themselves. Then one day when we have the dataand ability to figure out how much of an impact man has had on the naturally occuring climate change cycle - very little in my opinion - we can then start to figure out if we can actually do anything about it.

In the meantime keep your ****ing hands out of my wallet with your bull**** made up climate change taxes and obscenely stupid cap and trade schemes please.

Actually, the belief that global warming is not caused by humans is a myth. Scientists are mostly unanimous in the fact that global warming on the scale that it is now is not natural and seen as though many on this forum believe in science above all else, it should then not be disputed. Those scientists that say otherwise are viewed as 'heretic' by their peers. The Data is far from incomplete, Scientists have been working for a long time in our last "clean" environment, Antartica, collecting it. More importantly there is evidence, that if nothing is done to stop it we are heading for disaster.

As for humans not being as big an impact on the environment, as i said, blinkers.

I don't see any other creatures on earth building factories that produce poisonous gas byproducts or drive cars that pump gasses into the atmosphere or dump poisonous wastes all over the place.
 
Ignoring economic principles which solve the problem of scare resources shows complete ignorance as well.

In the meantime it is up to the individual to choose how to live as it always has been. If that means buying a car that uses lots of petrol then so be it. Since it is a resource becoming more and more scarce he will fork out more and more. That way eventually he will have to move.

If the person wants to choose a lighter car on fuel or use less electricity or go solar or whatever then good for them.

FORCING policies on people that are suppossed to help us do nothing concrete(Factual in terms of AGW) other than line the pockets of those who sell these ideas/products

Show me where the economy has forced any one to cut down. Our petrol price is exorbitant now but people still use there cars inthe exact same way. In any event no company is going to sell anything at a price that no one will buy, so even high costs will never get to the point that will mean no sales. If you believe that companies are one day going to wake up and say 'hey their is not much fuel left, only enough for another 10 years, so lets put the price up to the point that no one buys anymore then you don't know much about how companies make money. They want to make as much profit as posible but also want to make sales so they insure that prices remain affordable.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X