Global Warming is real

just look outside morons

Thank god I have my air conditioner.

Global warming will hit the middle east the hardest, solving that problem for us.

hello?  america?  pull your heads out of your asses

The only way Americans are going to pull their heads out of their asses is if you stupid fucks across the world STOP denominating your oil supplies in DOLLARS.  Stop this constant, implied admission that the American Dollar is worth anything, and American might will fade, and they'll finally and meekly crawl to the UN's table and sign Kyoto.

China puts out just as much, if not more, CO2 as America does.

:'  )

Well, who's the moron who allowed that?  To wit:

"India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement."

(ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)

>>8
he didn't give back his lollipop so why should i
nom nom nom
*child contenues crying in background*

I am a strongly against Global Warming, give me strong evidence that it is the Greenhouse gases, and not the Natural way of the earth.

Go.

>>10

Well everyone agrees that carbon dioxide has a higher specific heat (stays warm longer) than most other gases but you are wondering if its part of a natural cycle.  Volcanoes emit CO2 also..

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html
--As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources.

OH SNAP!

>>10
Firstly, if you're strongly against Global Warming, you didn't say why.  Surely you based that on evidence, right?

Secondly, the carbon component of the atmosphere has a strong positive correlation with air temperatures.  As a studious person, not only should you know this already, but you'd also know greenhouse gases tend to be based upon carbon molecules.

Therefore, you can only conclude from the evidence that as we dump lots of carbon compounds into the atmosphere, the carbon component of our atmosphere rises (as has been unquestionably determined by many decades of measurement, followed by representative centuries of sampling, with many representative millennia of more esoteric sampling), and as that fraction rises, the world average temperature is going to rise (as it has, again by the unquestionable determination of measurement).  Hotter air unquestionably acts on the ocean to produce a warmer surface layer, which is the majority driver of cyclonic storms like hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.

The quantity of carbon in the atmosphere now is becoming unprecedented for the last 600000 years.  Hold on to your hats -- that level is going to at least DOUBLE over the next 50 years.  A world rise in temps of 7°C is going to produce weather that was largely only found in Biblical stories.

Personally, I can't wait for the ice cap on Greenland to reach a critical threshold for base lubricity from meltwater, and it will literally crack apart and slide off into the ocean within a period run of about 20 years.  The ENTIRE CAP will be gone ... and it will raise the ocean levels by 10 feet.  TEN FUCKING FEET.  That will require a major redrawing of the majority of the coastlines of the world.  The Pacific peoples will be essentially obliterated.  You should be able to see that clearly, right?  When shore slopes are commonly around 1 foot per mile, that means the sea will intrude unstoppably up to 10 miles inland (hence erasing a lot of Pacific island real estate).  That will probably cost us 1/5 of Florida, which will displace millions ... IN FLORIDA ALONE.

The only real case AGAINST Global Warming (which is more accurately called Global Catastrophic Climate Shift) is that businessmen and other wealthy individuals will suffer from inappropriately applied environmental controls.  Since THOSE people are going to smell like roses either way, it's clear that there IS NO REAL CASE against Global Warming.  We have to choose:  do we protect the extremity of the wealth of the rich, or do we protect 10s of millions of people across the world?  Obviously, those many millions should trump the excess in the bank accounts of the rich.

I wonder if the netherlands with their crazy diking systems will become an island after water levels raise up.

netherlands will become a huge boat,actually

I bet the netherlands will double in size 50 years after the flood. The surrounding counties will have given up on their lost land and the island nation of holland will expand outward

the netherlands will become a muslim state 100 years from now so they will do nothing about the rising sea level except blaming the us and the jews.

I bet the Netherlands will be flooded and 1000 years later they will emerge as a new superhuman atlantean race and take over.

Stoners protected by a wall of dykes?  That sounds like a long term plan.

Does anyone remember Rush Limbaugh (and the rest of the pundits representing the Right-Wing Conspiracy) howling with laughter over Al Gore holding a seminar on Global Warming on one of the coldest days of the year?  That's about the speed of the so-called critics of Global Warming.  Their hidden agenda is really not so hidden, considering it was plainly spoken by their Holy American Emperor, George W. Bush the Younger:

"I walked away from Kyoto because it would damage America's economy, you bet. It would have destroyed our economy. It was a lousy deal for the American economy."

Check it:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1521149,00.html

Climate shifts are natural for the Earth. This climate shift is also natural and is unrelated to the CO2 levels. Proof? For proof of previous climate shifts to prove that the Earth's climate naturally fluctuates please wiki the "Medieval Warm Period" and "The Little Ice Age."
Please note that we did not have CO2 emitting power plants in the Medieval Period. Please note that the Little Ice Age began declining before the industrial revolution. Please note that during THE ICE AGE not the Little Ice Age but the famous Ice Age with the Mammoths and such that CO2 levels were much much higher than they currently are.
Even if we were to regard the menace of Global Warming as real, it would not be as tragic as you think. Plants take in CO2 and emit O2 or the very air that sustains all living creatures: Oxygen. Therefore, with a surplus of CO2 all those trees that eco-geeks cry about will thrive. Also, as for your dreaded flooding, if the basic survival instincts still in animals exist in humans we'll have the sense to move away from the ocean as the ocean rises from any icecap melting.
Also note that because of the icecap melting new lands will be available for humans. Nearly unlimited resources of oil in the arctic spots of the world will finally be available for extraction. Those horrific gas prices we currently pay will drop to barely anything.
In short, climate change is a natural occurrence on the Earth. However, if you do not believe that, then that's fine because global warming is a good thing. Thank you for your time and again here are good searches for wikipedia.
"Medieval Warm Period"
"Little Ice Age"

Yes, climate shifts are natural for the Earth.  The projected level of carbon in the atmosphere will NOT be.  They will rise to a level not seen, ever, in any measurement.  They will rise far beyond what was seen in the last 600000 years, which as you must admit contains all those ice ages and warm periods and little ice ages.

World temperatures are STRONGLY associated with atmospheric carbon, no matter what your master Rush Limbaugh has to say about it.  If you claim to be using wiki, then use it YOURSELF.

As it stands, your acceptance of "we'll have the sense to move away from the ocean as the ocean rises" is what most clearly exposes your bias.  Moving away from the oceans will mean moving such a huge fraction of Humanity and their wealth, that it will dwarf all the wars we've waged so far.  If you can avoid moving a billion people and expending a trillion dollars just moving it all and another trillion just getting people settled in at some inland location, THEN YOU SHOULD AVOID IT!

Extreme weather breaks records in 2007
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/Extreme_weather_breaks_records_in_2007.html?siteSect=143&sid=8086059&cKey=1186493933000&ty=ti

Ah, that must be just another LibJewDem plot amongst the reporters in the media to stop businessmen from making rightful profits from emitting more carbon that the land and oceans can absorb.  Record-setting weather?  As well the LibJewDem scientists should just go to The Church™ more instead of looking at masses of data and seeing whatever they personally want to see in it all!  Once in The Church™ with all the right-thinking folk, they can then get into investment groups and start really living instead of all this gloom and doom, anti-American CRAP.  Right?

bump for more hot weather

>>19
Wow. I have an economy but now horrific weather conditions.

Where can I spend my economy now?

Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years.

>>20
DURH PLANTS ABSORB IT!!!!

OH WAIT RAINFORESTS HAVE BEEN CHOPPED DOWN HURR>>>UHMMMMM

YOU WIN THE DIPSHIT PRIZE!

the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

>>27
...not yet.

>>27
Why not run into a battle wearing nothing but a torc, since you're so smart.

>>27
yeah those tousands of scientists all saying the same thing are fucking stupid!

Environmentalists have yet to come up with sufficient evidence which directly correlates humans with globabl warming. Until such time that they do (which will never happen), I will not believe that humans are the main/only cause. And if humans are really responsible for global warming, then how do you explain this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

whats global warming?????????????????????

Get our of your mom's basement and read Newsweek. It's even on the front page.

Fuck environmentalists. Most environmentalists would prefer a planet without humans fullstop. But fuck stupidity also. An economy in exchange for a habitable planet is just plain retarded. Face facts. Humans are responsible for most of the shit that goes wrong on this planet. Not the dolphins, not the lions or tigers but humans.

Fuck wiki too. Use your goddamn brain for a fucking change.

>>33
It's definitely not biased amirite?
>>34
You cannot legitimately back up any of the subpar points you have made. You have no way to prove that humans are responsible for this. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.

Whether or not human is responsible, no one is going to do anything until things get out of hand. So sit back and enjoy your air-conditioners.

>>35
Who's responsible? Aliens? GTFO.

>>35
Regardless of whether or not it's biased, it cites sources and uses reason to prove its point, unlike the baseless conjecture that we see here. The scientists who say that global warming is a myth are little more than shills payed by oil companies. There's basically no arguing against that.

>>38

exactly

>There's basically no arguing against that.

Bigot.

u fukin idiots.
1970's TIME magazine headlines dominated by theories of a GLOBAL COOLING!! ffs, L 2 NOT WOMAN ! ! ~ change ur mind again and I'll give the international public a facial

well fuck it all those old money pricks with their waterfront
properties will loose out... sooo who cares? they are the ones that own the stocks in the companies that are fucking everything up. they'll probably build floating whorehouses teaming with
mutant mermaid creatures though... srsy who could resist giving that a try? well... the rich still get richer,

mmm tentacles

>>12
get the facts from somewhere else but flamers. CO2 has nothing to do with warming the globe, it's another way around. When earth warms up, CO2 levels go up.

I could use some global cooling now. It's fucking hot.

>>43

lulz.  masterful troll

>>43
Nice theory. For morons.

>>43
>>46
There's a small part of that theory that actually does apply, seeing how permafrost and continental-shelf areas contain methane, CO₂ and other carbon-based gases held in suspension.  Warming these areas will tend to release that stuff.

HOWEVER, those releases are just follow-on or cascading effects from the initial cause.  The base cause remains the same:  Increasing the levels of greenhouse gases (like CO₂) in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the atmosphere.  There's no serious or meritorious claim against that (except on headfuck shows like Rush Limbaugh).

>>25
Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years. Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for over a million years.

In conclusion, nuclear power is the future. Therei s global warming and if there is nothing we can do about that, there is still plenty of oil but it is getting more difficult to extract as easily accesible supplies are exhausted. Energy companies need to realise that in the next 20-30 years oil and gas will make up a smaller percentage of our energy consumption and we must invest in nuclear power.

There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide. There is no such thing as carbon dioxide.

>>49
Invest in a dead planet? Wow, just wow.

Renewable resources motherfucker, do you use it?

>>50
That is not a very compelling argument.

>>51
They suck. Nuclear power it is!

>>49

If we'd completely switch to nuclear power, we'd run out of uranium in 30 years.

what ever happened to that salt water idea? burns when you shoot radio waves at it

>>54
There are 40 million tons of easily extracted uranium that we are using now and the oceans contain an estimated 4.3 billion metric tons of uranium which can be extracted at greater expense but not uneconomically (energy prices will increase anyway). This is enough to last 2000 years.

>>54
FAG

>>55
link pls

>>56

IN THEORY.

>>59
In fact.

>>60 is largely right, >>59 .  One way to look at the ocean is that its the largest, continuous body of ore on Earth.  Sure, processing a cubic kilometer of ocean to extract some grams of uranium seems pointless, until you realize that we're running out of oil, coal is fairly dirty, and sunlight is free.  Why not put a modest platform on the ocean, powered by sunlight or an OTEC, and let it churn away collecting uranium?

This site:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/207-uranium-from-seawater-part-1.html

... explores these claims.  Assuming a uniform concentration of 3mg U / m³ in seawater, processing about 300 cubic meters of seawater at 100% recovery would produce 1kg of Uranium.  Assuming a conservative 10% recovery process, that's 3000 m³, or a cubical body of seawater about 14m (47ft) to a side.  That sounds workable.

I wish I could get through 300 cubic meters of semen.

>>61

That's interesting, I had no idea. Thanks for the information.

      ███░░░░░░░█████████████
      ███░░░░░░░█████████████
      ███░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
      ███░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
      ███░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
      ███░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░
      ███████████████████████
NADER ███████████████████████ GORE
      ░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░███
      ░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░███
      ░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░███
      ░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░███
      █████████████░░░░░░░███
      █████████████░░░░░░░███

>>62

That's interesting, I had no idea. Thanks for the information.