Can global warming really be slowed down?

[VICTORIADON]

global warming is real

Yes, global warming IS real but the question is...Can global warming really be slowed down?
And I say no. It is a natural cycle that the earth goes through and has gone through for billions of years. Scientists say their studies show this, that and another thing and I think it is all bull. If they, any of them, can explain oil reserves in Northern Canada, Russia, Alaska where it is cold NOW and at the same time explain oil reserves in Iraq, Iran etc where it is HOT now when everybody knows that oil is a mixture of the remanants of dead ORGANIC make that MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEAD ORGANIC matter that needed temperate growing conditions to be there in the first place, I may pause to listen, but they can't without admitting the earth goes through natural cycles of hot and cold. The same thing with coal. Oil and coal were not created at the same time as the earth, they are both organic in basis! We are going into a warming cycle and man has done very little to contribute to that cycle compared to what mother nature has done from the beginning of this planet. Can it be slowed down, no, nature always follows its own course and man has only been here for a blink of an eye as far as nature is concerned.

 

[_AJ_]

Yes, global warming IS real but the question is...Can global warming really be slowed down?

there is no evidence that it cant be slowed down

so if there is a chance that we can i think we shoud do whatever it takes

 

[Theyoungman]

We're goign to die and kill ourselves and the environment anyway...

 

[Sevos-CT]

Yes, global warming IS real but the question is...Can global warming really be slowed down?
And I say no. It is a natural cycle that the earth goes through and has gone through for billions of years. Scientists say their studies show this, that and another thing and I think it is all bull. If they, any of them, can explain oil reserves in Northern Canada, Russia, Alaska where it is cold NOW and at the same time explain oil reserves in Iraq, Iran etc where it is HOT now when everybody knows that oil is a mixture of the remanants of dead ORGANIC make that MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEAD ORGANIC matter that needed temperate growing conditions to be there in the first place, I may pause to listen, but they can't without admitting the earth goes through natural cycles of hot and cold. The same thing with coal. Oil and coal were not created at the same time as the earth, they are both organic in basis! We are going into a warming cycle and man has done very little to contribute to that cycle compared to what mother nature has done from the beginning of this planet. Can it be slowed down, no, nature always follows its own course and man has only been here for a blink of an eye as far as nature is concerned.

Witholding the fact that some organisms can still live even in those extreme environments, a better explanation of the oil and coal reserves in the North would be plate tectonics. Around 200 million years ago, all of our assorted land masses were concentrated in the superficial middle of the earth, near the equator, in one giant continent known as Pangea. In this environment, life was able to thrive, and die, in the areas you listed, providing the organic residue necessary for fossil fuels.

Here's a good link to a summation of the reasons as to why it is more likely that the current climate change is due to anthropogenic causes rather than "normal" causes: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF

 

[VICTORIADON]

I have my own opinions on this topic and have shared them with you all, let's look at another dozen opinions on both sides of the subject:

Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
[/FONT]
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html

 

[Finn]

Global warming is real. But I'm not convinced that it's not a natural cycle.

Remember Y2k?

 

[luminum]

Let me put it this way:

Yes. Global warming is natural. Global cooling is natural.

It's natural for a kid to bike as fast as maybe 20 miles per hour. It's unnatural for a kid to hook his bike to a speeding car and go 70 miles per hour. can that kid stop going 70mph and go back to 20mph? Yes.

Likewise, is global warming happening at a faster rate than it should? Yes.

Is it possible to slow global warming down to its natural and standard rate? Yes.

Will the earth eventually cool after it has reached the apex of its natural warming cycle? Yes. Scientists have known about the Earth's natural warming and cooling cycles for years.

Does that discredit global warming? No.

Does it discredit the scientific research that shows that global warming is happening faster than it has in all its previous warming cycles in the earth's history? No. The earth is heating at a faster rate than it's supposed to--a faster rate than any of the previous cycles that have happened in the Earth's multi-billion year history.

What could be the added factor? Gee, I wonder.

 

[frankfrank]

Earth is the only place that we can live, so far. Why do the policy-makers continue to "GAMBLE" that global warming may just be a myth? It's not a very sensible gamble.

I heard a talk show last night that said that, though there's perhaps a one-in-80 chance that your house will burn down in the coming year, YOU TAKE OUT AN INSURANCE POLICY. In the United States (which unconscionably doesn't have guaranteed national health care, but I digress...), chances aren't all that great that you'll have major medical issues in a given year, but you buy health insurance.

The chances are FAR higher (than the above probabilities) that global warming is influenced by humans, so why don't we take out "insurance" - by aggressively developing other technologies??????????

I mentioned in a previous thread that, even here in western Illinois, well away from prevailing winds bringing industrial-area smog into the area, haze has become very commonly visible. I remember in the Sixties that haze would occur only during a temperature inversion, and I lived in industrialized southeast Michigan. I think of this as a sign that far too much is being spewed into the air to be at all safe or sensible - and what is spewed into the air at Chicago or Texas City or Newark eventually finds its way to Reykjavik, Istanbul and Perth. Yes, there are enough chemicals in the air that I can *SEE* them. This can't possibly be healthy - global warming issues notwithstanding - but I almost never hear anybody talking about the potential health issues of spewing more and more pollutants into the air. That used to be talked about (back in the days before "global warming" had been explored much as a concept), and now only global warming gets mentioned. But I feel it's a twin issue here.

What I'm saying, therefore, is that IF "GLOBAL WARMING" IS ENTIRELY A MYTH, the health of this planet will STILL be better off without all of the poison in the air! That alone should be enough motivation, but it isn't, because health *NEVER* wins against corporate profit.

No...actually a THREE-headed issue! Somebody above mentioned that it's NOT natural to burn, in the space of a few decades, the fuel which Nature spent many millions of years developing. If U.S. policy (which DOES reverberate around nearly the entire planet) insists on burning all the fuel with reckless abandon, it WILL run out someday. What happens then? Will the world be ready for fossil-fuel-starved technology? Probably not.

 

[Rali_hates_Mondays]

If we cannot stop or slow down the rate of global warming, do you think it is possible for us to adapt to it?

I remember reading an article from the Sunday Times about an economist, whose name I cannot remember, who said that we should put more resources into adapting to global warming rather than putting everything into reducing it, when really it seems inevitable.

 

[_AJ_]

If we cannot stop or slow down the rate of global warming, do you think it is possible for us to adapt to it?

I remember reading an article from the Sunday Times about an economist, whose name I cannot remember, who said that we should put more resources into adapting to global warming rather than putting everything into reducing it, when really it seems inevitable.

we will always adapt over time that is a given

adapting requires little effort over a long period of time

of course people would prefer this as most people wouldent want to make the effort because there lazy!