| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 89510 | 2008-05-02 13:49:00 | Global warming is codswallop! | feersumendjinn (64) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 665223 | 2008-05-06 10:41:00 | If you accept that there was an ice age then surely you must accept that the earth has warmed considerably since then. I presume you also accept that mankind was not around in sufficient numbers to influence this warming? If that is the case, then how did the earth come to be warmer since the last ice age? | andrew93 (249) | ||
| 665224 | 2008-05-06 11:04:00 | Insofar as the ice caps melting and flooding Pacific Islands - that isn't going to happen. It is not a case of head in the sand - it is based on the fact that ice is less dense than water. First - ice melts. And second - CO2 isn't the only pollutant made by man. I'm saying - the existence of humans plus global warming is accelerating the extinction process of thousands of species, flora and fauna. At this rate, most will not have time for natural selection to diverge new species as many die before they are able to breed. You can't expect new species of plants and animals that are resistant to the changing climate to be born in a matter decades - the time it takes for many species to go extinct at this stage. This isn't really natural selection anymore. The rampant growth of human population is rapidly pushing fauna and flora to the brinks of a crisis. Call me a hippie if you like, but I simply think a world without a diverse range of animals and plants is a pretty damn boring world. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 665225 | 2008-05-06 11:19:00 | Did all of the species we see today exist at the time of the last ice age? I agree about pollutants and diversity etc but why carbon? Why not target these other pollutants? As has been said earlier a carbon trading scheme will do NOTHING to reduce CO2 emissions - if we enact it and no-one else does then we can kiss goodbye any of our remaining industries to those countries that don't adopt the scheme. Yet another own goal from our politicians... Even based on what you say, global warming and pollution are 2 different issues. I'm curious - do you accept that? Or do you think otherwise? |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 665226 | 2008-05-06 11:50:00 | Did all of the species we see today exist at the time of the last ice age? No, but still quite a few remain, and what we see today are either descendants or those that survived the Ice Age. I agree about pollutants and diversity etc but why carbon? Why not target these other pollutants? As has been said earlier a carbon trading scheme will do NOTHING to reduce CO2 emissions - if we enact it and no-one else does then we can kiss goodbye any of our remaining industries to those countries that don't adopt the scheme. Yet another own goal from our politicians... You didn't read what I wrote earlier regarding the carbon tax crap, did you? Well, I'll say it again: no, I myself do not support this carbon trading POS, because at the end of the day it doesn't do what its name implies. It's the government's way of sucking in what money we have left in the name of the planet. The only thing I see from it is worsening pollution, as because the government have more money, they can spend it on whatever hell they want, and you can bet these expenditures will produce even more pollutants. And as for the CO2 is heavier than oxygen thing....yes, that is correct, but if you think that's all there is to it then you'll go to sleep and never wake up if you ever lie down on the ground. CO2 exist in the atmosphere, not just below it. Even based on what you say, global warming and pollution are 2 different issues. I'm curious - do you accept that? Or do you think otherwise? Yeah, the two are different issues, but looking at it realistically, the effects both are having on the environment is catastrophic. Global warming by itself is natural, and most probably new species will come about as things evolve, but when you add the all-too-real pollution, that's when you have a real crisis choking all that are living. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 665227 | 2008-05-06 11:54:00 | Best way to cut CO2 emissions is to stop breathing. Zqwerty should lead by example. |
legod (4626) | ||
| 665228 | 2008-05-06 12:48:00 | An even more silly comment than usual from you legod. | zqwerty (97) | ||
| 665229 | 2008-05-06 13:29:00 | Best way to cut CO2 emissions is to stop breathing. Zqwerty should lead by example. Give it a break Lego. Zqwerty and others disagree with you. Get over it. Others disagree with me too, eg the plane won't fly. How sad, too bad. :cool: |
Greg (193) | ||
| 665230 | 2008-05-06 16:00:00 | First - ice melts . And second - CO2 isn't the only pollutant made by man . I'm saying - the existence of humans plus global warming is accelerating the extinction process of thousands of species, flora and fauna . At this rate, most will not have time for natural selection to diverge new species as many die before they are able to breed . You can't expect new species of plants and animals that are resistant to the changing climate to be born in a matter decades - the time it takes for many species to go extinct at this stage . This isn't really natural selection anymore . The rampant growth of human population is rapidly pushing fauna and flora to the brinks of a crisis . Call me a hippie if you like, but I simply think a world without a diverse range of animals and plants is a pretty damn boring world . So you suggest that species are dying and not being replaced, then other "experts" say that evolution will fix things with NEW species? You can't have it both ways . I know that YOU aren't gonna fall for evolution . . . . . but consider this for a counterpoint: It's devolution that's got this all messed up . Some are saying that "natural selection" being forced by global warming is destroying multitudes of present life forms . They then don't logically go further and see that this same theory is also going to deny any new species . . as they won't have the eons of time necessary to evolve . A working premise would require a time holding pattern to get evolution back up to speed and re-populate the earth with variegated new species and such . No . . the "TIME" factor totally messes with evolution . . . it takes too long and never worked in the first place . The cyclical heating-cooling would have snuffed out the possibility of evolution every time the climate sneezed . . . and those climatic cycles are a lot more often than the evolutionary introduction requirements of some "new species" as they seem to so merrily imply happens in fair regularity . For evolution to work, global cycles of heating-cooling, glaciers-no glaciers, volcanic winter with death to most vegetative species/forms, greenhouse periods with rampant flora/fauna, and all the other "burps" would have to have been severely limited in the missing chapter of the "Origin of Species" textbook from which they quote . If evolution needs the time that it apparently does to diversify and create "new" species, then I understand by extension that you say that there is also insufficient time left for humans to continue their feeble existence . You see . . . you are falling into the trap of pro-evolutionists if you think that way . That's just another case of evolution stacking the deck with Royal Flushes, attempting to insure a forced but ill-fitting, illogical success . It isn't in the cards . . . the warming/cooling is quite natural . . although now there is a Judas Goat to try to blame for it all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . called "mankind" . . . but he doesn't have the power or the impact to cause all the changes you suggest . In times past, the climatic changes argument would have the earth limited to (by now) maybe a few bladderworts, a fig tree (sterile) and a pair of breeding amoebas . . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 665231 | 2008-05-06 19:59:00 | So I take it you don't believe in Darwinian evolution, SJ? Well, you're entitled to believe in whatever you want. I personally am a pro-evolutionist. Climatic changes in the past that fueled biological evolution did not have humans to disrupt the process. Today, humans encroaches on animal territories, where they are forced to shy away and have less access to food, and conflicts between humans and animals result in deaths of the animals. Humans poach and hunt animals for meaningless glory and useless artifacts. They do this without caring whether they are killing more than they should or not. Pollution from everyday lives in humans chokes animals, plants which they eat. Without human beings, I believe today's global warming can allow natural selection to take its normal course. ........... called "mankind" ...but he doesn't have the power or the impact to cause all the changes you suggest. You cannot be more wrong, SJ my friend. ;) |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 665232 | 2008-05-06 20:32:00 | Give it a break Lego. Zqwerty and others disagree with you. Get over it. Others disagree with me too, eg the plane won't fly. How sad, too bad. :cool: You get over it. |
legod (4626) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | |||||