Jump to content
IGNORED

Global Warming - Myth Or Truth


aaron

Global Warming - Myth or Truth  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it a myth or is it truth?

    • Myth
      4
    • Truth
      5
    • Dont care
      1


Recommended Posts

Was just wondering what people thought of it. All honesty i think its overrated. The worlds been heating up since the ice age bit by bit. Some scientists have said its happened before (the world heats up, then cools, then heats again) it just goes through cycles and that humans are only helping it speed up the tinyest of touches.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah i think it is half true, but i saw a documentary about it a while back which basically stated that it was all bollocks. They say the temperatures are rising, but as you say they have done exactly the same thing before, and at a faster rate. It's just because since records began they haven't see such a sharp rise, but seeing as temperature records don't go back that far we haven't got much scope for comparison.

 

As with most things on the news, I think the severity of the problem is exagerated as mentioned above ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all a scam to get even more money out of us in taxes etc. by trying to blame us for it.

 

I voted myth, but I suppose it is actually true - it seems the earth IS warming up, but I don't believe it has much to do with us. We've had at least 4 ice ages since the earth came into existence, so obviously there have been warmer periods in between (where 'global warming' obviously occured), and this happened long before the appearance of humans.

 

The climate does not naturally remain constant, the earth has been warming and cooling cyclically since time began - we just happen to be in a warming bit at the moment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted i dont care cos if it happens i wont be around anyway so why should i bother. Earth has looked after itself for billions of years without the help of these glory seeking (Lets jump on my soapbox and feel all important) merchants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

truth however it is severly exagerated. as soon as there is a slightly warmer summer than expected or a hurricane where hurricaines always occour (bermuda triangle for example) the media go on about global warming

 

last year where the floods in gloucester and tweksbury occoured. floods happen all the time there (i used to live near there, where i lived if you spat in the river wye it would burst its banks) but yet the media always said it was all due to global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indesputable truth, doubted only by the seriously gullible (including most Americans....with apologies to JD and the rest).

 

Actually I don't think most people who aren't CEOs or major stockholders of big oil companies doubt that global warming exists. Even everyone's favorite whipping boy George W. Bush admits that it exists. The bigger questions have always been, how much of it is natural and how much is man-made, and how much can we (and should we) do about it. Unfortunately, the scientific research into climate change is still relatively new and relatively crude - remember that just 30 years ago all the alarm bells were being rung over global cooling and scientists were warning us that we were teetering on the brink of another ice age. Now the temperature goes up a bit, and suddenly they're all sounding the alarm the other way. Of course, the environmentalists and the anti-environmentalists are both quick to trumpet the latest published study that supports their point of view (and ridicule the ones that don't), and the media doesn't help since they're only interested in sound bites and headlines, not nuance and detail, but the fact is that there is still a lot of disagreement even within the scientific community over - not so much the existence of the problem - but the causes, the scope, and even the effects that it will have. It's been collective wisdom for years, for instance, that warmer oceans will mean more hurricanes, but one leading climatologist (and global warming advocate) just published the results of a projection study he ran that indicated we might see fewer hurricanes as the ocean temperature rose. It just points up how much we really don't know yet.

 

All that is really just a long-winded way of saying that we still have a lot to learn about this issue. I'm all for reducing carbons and other crap in the atmosphere (whether you believe in global warming or not, it's still unpleasant to smell and breathe that stuff), and I'm all for continuing to study the issue and learn more about it. I'm not in favor of implementing radical remedies at this point, when we still know so little about what we're dealing with, nor am I in favor of completely ignoring it.

 

And incidentally, despite the popular Eurocentric perception of Americans that Mike seems to have bought into, the last poll I saw showed 82% of the people in this country think global warming is real and only 10% think it's a hoax. And no matter who wins the presidential election you'll see more action taken by the next administration, because even McCain's position on global warming intervention is closer to the Democrats than it is to most of his fellow Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And incidentally, despite the popular Eurocentric perception of Americans that Mike seems to have bought into, the last poll I saw showed 82% of the people in this country think global warming is real and only 10% think it's a hoax.

 

Hmmm....Gallup poll for the Yale school of Forestry and Environmental Studies last July got a figure of 38% of Americans completely convinced that global warming is happening, but I'll accept that opinion is moving in the right direction.

 

I realise that there are many evolved Americans and you're coming to your senses as a country (evidenced by your hugely overdue distaste for Bush) but my personal view is based on far more than popular perception :) . I prefer to think for myself.

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics eh :P ?

Edited by MikeO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this talk about carbons and bad air culminating in global warming i personally think is a load of shit, anybody would think we live in a tent, the earth has no ceiling and any bad shit floating around has a million miles of outer space to disperse into and never be seen again.

The ice caps melting and sending more water to flood the country is another old wives tale, try an experiment with an ice cube and see when it melts how different in area and volume the water is compared to the ice cube. If the ice caps melted it wouldnt raise the sea depth an inch.

Theres no more or no less water now than theres ever been, the water evaporates into the air collects in the clouds and comes down again as rain, same old water just doing the rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOOOO the ice is melting..... try this to show why it wont "really" matter

 

pint glass fill half way with ice cubes

 

fill to brim now with water

 

place on your lovely new wank mag and let it melt baby

 

will the glass overflow and ruin your precious mag?????????????????????????????

 

will it bollocks................

 

Ice glaciers........... have been melting away FOREVER

 

plus for the science buffs out there.... do you know how long it takes to heat like allllllll the water on our planet by 1 degree......

 

a BIT more then 100 years anyway lets try 1000 years... think the would have drank oil back then let alone burn it........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the argument about the ice caps. your right if the whole of the north pole melted the water levels wouldnt raise at all. because the ice is already dispersing the water.

 

however if the ice in antarctica and greenland melt then it would raise the sea levels as it isnt already displacing the water. its like opening a tap and fillling up the glass which you used to melt the ice cubes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the argument about the ice caps. your right if the whole of the north pole melted the water levels wouldnt raise at all. because the ice is already dispersing the water.

 

however if the ice in antarctica and greenland melt then it would raise the sea levels as it isnt already displacing the water. its like opening a tap and fillling up the glass which you used to melt the ice cubes

 

 

Same difference, the area, and volume would reduce drammaticly leaving the water to find its own level.

 

Its like the window cleaner emptying his bucket into the river mersey, it wouldnt alter the depth one iota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its like the window cleaner emptying his bucket into the river mersey, it wouldnt alter the depth one iota.

 

It's a big bucket Bill.....

 

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)....(At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected).

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted.

 

Can I just suggest to 250 that he buys a bloody big snorkel :P .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol: Its never going to happen unless the earth gets thrown off its axis, then we are all in trouble but not from melting ice, the scaremongers are luvin it.

 

Can you tell me how much of the earth % wise is covered by water, as opposed to antarticas land mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you tell me how much of the earth % wise is covered by water, as opposed to antarticas land mass.

 

Total surface area of the planet 510m km2, 70.8% covered by water (361m km2).

 

Antarctica covers 14m km2.

 

Get yer abacus out :P .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol: Its never going to happen, the scaremongers are luvin it.

 

Can you tell me how much of the earth % wise is covered by water, as opposed to antarticas land mass.

 

 

AND can you tell me where I can buy a 7 metre snorkle?

 

 

Can I add that whilst I appreciate all that Lickers doing to calm the people of Norfolk, with his ice cube in the bath experiments........I'd also like to thank the person who removed the pictures of him doing the said experiment from the forum!! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total surface area of the planet 510m km2, 70.8% covered by water (361m km2).

 

Antarctica covers 14m km2.

 

Get yer abacus out :P .

 

That means the land mass of antartica 14m kms is about 10% of the whole worlds land mass 139m kms, Its like taking the Icing off a wedding cake and putting it onto a football pitch, plus the fact that it has 361million kms of water to disperse itself into all the oceans, it wouldnt be very noticeable. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its like taking the Icing off a wedding cake and putting it onto a football pitch,

 

Hmmm, an average football pich is about 8,000m2, 10% of that is 800m2 which is an area of about 28x28 metres. I wish I'd been at your wedding Bill...that's a whole lotta cake :D !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...