Is global warming "bad" for our planet?

The answer is no. It isn't. Global Warming is actually quite neutral. Think about nature is quite adaptive, its going to take much more than higher temperatures and higher sea lines to stop. A few species might become extinct or brought to their knees but the planet is going to keep turning, and new species will take their places. So what's the problem?

The problem is human beings might be one of those species that become extinct or are brought to their knees. This is why I dislike the term global warming. It doesn't give the situation justice. That's why I propose for the name Potential Human Extinction, P.H.E. Let's call it what it is. Which is the better cause, recycling to save polar bears and rain forests or recycling to save our saves?

Find me someone who doesn't believe in global warming and find me someone who does believe in global warming. I will then sit them down and ask them, "Do you like pollution?" Most likely they will say "No". Those 'no's may be for different reasons but at least they are on the same page. Instead of trying to pull people to either side, we must come to them.

Which is the more moving?

Drive an electric car* and stop the melting ice caps.

Drive an electric car* and stop human Extinction.

*a little fun fact, driving electric cars in countries like America, actually doesn't help the environment. Majority of America's electricity comes from coal, you're just moving the pollution to somewhere else. It is an illusion.

In short: if we don't get our s#!% together we're done for.

Yes.

@Agent9149 said:

The answer is no. It isn't. Global Warming is actually quite neutral. Think about nature is quite adaptive, its going to take much more than higher temperatures and higher sea lines to stop. A few species might become extinct or brought to their knees but the planet is going to keep turning, and new species will take their places. So what's the problem?

The problem is human beings might be one of those species that become extinct or are brought to their knees. This is why I dislike the term global warming. It doesn't give the situation justice. That's why I propose for the name Potential Human Extinction, P.H.E. Let's call it what it is. Which is the better cause, recycling to save polar bears and rain forests or recycling to save our saves?

Find me someone who doesn't believe in global warming and find me someone who does believe in global warming. I will then sit them down and ask them, "Do you like pollution?" Most likely they will say "No". Those 'no's may be for different reasons but at least they are on the same page. Instead of trying to pull people to either side, we must come to them.

Which is the more moving?

Drive an electric car* and stop the melting ice caps.

Drive an electric car* and stop human Extinction.

*a little fun fact, driving electric cars in countries like America, actually doesn't help the environment. Majority of America's electricity comes from coal, you're just moving the pollution to somewhere else. It is an illusion.

In general, I think the opinion on Global Warming is full of hot air. And not because of my political wing.

It's because people never bother to pay attention in Geology that there have been cycles of heat and cooling in the past worse than this. Heck, we're just getting out of an Ice Age. It'll warm up for a few thousand more years, then hit back with another super glacier.

The fact that politicians often discredit past findings of faster, worse climate change without any interference from humans is a reason why people in schools who are supposed to be the future game changers turn out to be as uninformed as you can get.

There was a phenomenon that occurred and has evidence supporting it called SnowBall Earth. An event prior to the Cambrien/Pre-Cambrien era that was within a century (a skip of the heart beat's time) of killing the tiny specks of life that had just emerged seconds before on the Geologic time scale.

And it was because of global warming that it melted the ice sheets enough to prevent complete ecological extinction. I hold cooling to be more damaging than heat; it took millions, if not billions of years to super heat Venus. It took less than a million to nearly kill fledgling humans. (check out the bottle neck that happened at the tail end of the glaciation of the last Ice Age. You'd respect ice a heck of a lot more if you learn what happened.)

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: I accept your thoughts on the matter but will you admit that pollution is bad, and deteriorates the quality of living for all humans and that we should take steps to get rid of it.

@Agent9149 said:

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope: I accept your thoughts on the matter but will you admit that pollution is bad, and deteriorates the quality of living for all humans and that we should take steps to get rid of it.

Shockingly enough there's always been a form of pollution dating back even prior to Industrialization. Apparently the Native Americans had a name for the pollution fog over Los Angeles even before there where buildings and cars to form it in the first place.

What gets me is stopping pollution is another word for using freaking algae as the next hot mess item for cars. It's not. Nuclear energy would be the best once the waste generated can be fully recycled.

Scary as it may sound, Nuclear Facilities are oasis for endangered species such as gators. Nobody can go onto those lands, and the animals haven't been infected by the dreaded atom.

Same thing with Chernobyl.

The Earth naturally goes through  cycles of global warming and global cooling.

George Carlin expressed his thoughts on this matter. My opinion fits with his concerning this issue.

@Prince_RehteStroC said:

George Carlin already expressed thoughts on this matter. My opinion fits with his in this topic.

This guy is a genius. No bull.

I study environmental science. But I'm not going to get involved, I'm just here to boast.

*scuttles away*

@KnightRise said:

I study environmental science. But I'm not going to get involved, I'm just here to boast.

*scuttles away*

I study Geology. :)

I challenge you to a duel!

*pulls out Yugioh cards*

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@KnightRise said:

I study environmental science. But I'm not going to get involved, I'm just here to boast.

*scuttles away*

I study Geology. :)

I challenge you to a duel!

*pulls out Yugioh cards*

*unsheaths samurai sword*

I major in wildlife, of course I brought a sword to a card fight!

Truth be told, I'm no expert on climate change, but whenever I throw the Enviro major line out, peope either cower in potentially less-informed fear or try to sound impressive so hard they fail at it XD

@KnightRise:

*looks at cards, then at sword. Chucks cards out the window, presses a button and a giant MECHA shows up outside.*

Can your sword cut through indestructible metal? It's Digichromazoid....

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope said:

@KnightRise:

*looks at cards, then at sword. Chucks cards out the window, presses a button and a giant MECHA shows up outside.*

Can your sword cut through indestructible metal? It's Digichromazoid....

dhahaha thread derailed

The people of Tuvalu seem to think so....

Easy for me to say though - I live in the mountains XD

@KnightRise:

Lol, I know. And nerd moment: Digi-chromazoid is the Digimon version of Adamantium. Like indestructium (or whatever) in Dragonball z.

I study things parallel to Earth Science majors, since Geology is an earth based science. So I can stand toe to toe with big shots. :)

Heck, I could probably give Jack Horner a run for his money on my views on dinosaurs versus his "established findings".

People discuss about global warming and I am still thinking why is summer hot xP

Sure it's bad...if you live on the coast.  I'm up north and smack dab in the middle of the country, it'll have to heat up a whole lot for me to care me.  For now I'm enjoying the warmer winters, lol.

@deadpoolrules:

Lucky for you. It's freaking cold enough outside to freeze solid a dinosaur.

And I live by LA in the foothills. It's usually hot!

@Agent9149 said:

The problem with using science is that you have to use the whole of science, not just parts here and there which conform to your belief system. So how about your statement: " a few species might become extinct or brought to their knees but the planet is going to keep turning, and new species will take their places." This is true of evolution (good for you for being on board with that at least) but the evolution of species happens on a scale outside of time as humans know it. If you think of the history of the planet as the length of human arm, if you took out a nail file and made one pass at your fingernail, by the analogy this would take off more than the time humans have been on earth. So it is not accurate to say that more life will evolve. Life evolves to fill a niche, and that takes a lot of time to accomplish.

Global Warming is not really neutral, not in the way that we perceive it because of this. Yes Global Warming can be part of natural cycles, but no not on the scale which humans have created in the past 100 years. Carbon dioxide gets released from the ocean and permafrost at certain intervals, but none like it is now. Anyone who is a climate change denier will look at only part of the facts, which can be misleading enough to seem like they are proving that the science fails, but only when looking at the biggest part do people understand that the science is sound.

And as for "save the humans" versus "save the polar bears". The fact that both species are in trouble is symptomatic of the problems, not their cause themselves. By that I mean to say that in both cases that addressing a set of issues will in fact save both the humans and the polar bears. In relative terms the Earth is a closed system (except for sunlight and the Earth's radiation) and thus everything here affects everything else here. The modern environmentalists don't look at problems as part of the solution, they look at the whole solution. Climate change can't really be stopped without fixing global poverty, which in turn is often fueled by war, so that also has to stop. Most climate scientists and climate experts look at a holistic approach to solving the problem, which is what makes it so difficult to deal with.

@Prince_RehteStroC said:

George Carlin expressed his thoughts on this matter. My opinion fits with his concerning this issue.

Excellent example to highlight my case above. George Carlin is not a scientist, and evidently not even a particularly intelligent person (unless this is parody of the deniers.) He makes a lot of hand gestures to make the point of those concerned about the environment seem like they are simpletons as we cannot figure out the concept that "the Earth will go on without us." His concept of species disappearing is also one of the great half-truths of the science of deniers. As I indicated above, species disappear, but on the geological scale, not on the human scale. Do 25 species disappear per day? Well despite this simple approach to science, it is actually probably a lot higher than that. The problem of species disappearing though is that it is happening on a greater scale (as in entire ecosystems are disappearing) and that it is happening not because of natural forces like forest fires or the introduction of a new apex predator, but because of habitat destruction and pollution. Take this as an example, for the emissions from certain pulp mills in Canada, the standard by which the mills have to adhere to pollution is that fish must be able to swim in the polluted waters for 3 days without dying. Not just not dying though, only 2 out of 3 fish from a sample have to live, and then only over the course of three days. And most of the mills still fail this low standard. Those fish do not have it programmed into their genetics to be resilient to pollution anymore than humans do. So his argument is built on false premises.

Sorry if I cannot provide more insight into the mind of this charlatan, but I had to stop watching in order to maintain the surface integrity of my computer screen. In terms of "everyone being afraid about something" though, the argument swings both ways. How is being afraid about what we are doing to the environment very different from being afraid of terrorists? (I mean other than in the degree of scale, terrorists can kill tens of thousands, the degradation of the environment can kill billions).

@RazzaTazz said:

@Agent9149 said:

The problem with using science is that you have to use the whole of science, not just parts here and there which conform to your belief system. So how about your statement: " a few species might become extinct or brought to their knees but the planet is going to keep turning, and new species will take their places." This is true of evolution (good for you for being on board with that at least) but the evolution of species happens on a scale outside of time as humans know it. If you think of the history of the planet as the length of human arm, if you took out a nail file and made one pass at your fingernail, by the analogy this would take off more than the time humans have been on earth. So it is not accurate to say that more life will evolve. Life evolves to fill a niche, and that takes a lot of time to accomplish.

Global Warming is not really neutral, not in the way that we perceive it because of this. Yes Global Warming can be part of natural cycles, but no not on the scale which humans have created in the past 100 years. Carbon dioxide gets released from the ocean and permafrost at certain intervals, but none like it is now. Anyone who is a climate change denier will look at only part of the facts, which can be misleading enough to seem like they are proving that the science fails, but only when looking at the biggest part do people understand that the science is sound.

And as for "save the humans" versus "save the polar bears". The fact that both species are in trouble is symptomatic of the problems, not their cause themselves. By that I mean to say that in both cases that addressing a set of issues will in fact save both the humans and the polar bears. In relative terms the Earth is a closed system (except for sunlight and the Earth's radiation) and thus everything here affects everything else here. The modern environmentalists don't look at problems as part of the solution, they look at the whole solution. Climate change can't really be stopped without fixing global poverty, which in turn is often fueled by war, so that also has to stop. Most climate scientists and climate experts look at a holistic approach to solving the problem, which is what makes it so difficult to deal with.

Admit it, this piece of text proves you have a heart- and this whole I want to be the most disliked moderator doesn't wash with me >.<.

Your like Comicvine's very own version of the Grinch =D

@laflux: Sshhh, don't tell anyone.

Of course it is.

The Earth goes through global warming periods and global cooling periods.

I hate everything on this planet so if the species die... well I'll just have to turn to cannibalism if humans are the last ones standing.

**sigh**

And yet again, I see wilful ignorance displayed. There are incredibly intelligent and well reasoned contributions on this thread and yet, I still see people discount information in favour of poorly supported opinions with holes the size of...well... the hole in the ozone layer.

To answer the OP -- yes, global warming is bad for our planet and no -- this is not part of the reputed cycle of warm, cool stages on our planet. This is a documented happening in the last one hundred years and those still cramming their heads in the sand in refusal to accept that truth are the biggest contributors to inaction towards dealing with it.

It's downright creepy, actually.

@Glitch_Spawn said:

@lykopis said:

**sigh**

And yet again, I see wilful ignorance displayed. There are incredibly intelligent and well reasoned contributions on this thread and yet, I still see people discount information in favour of poorly supported opinions with holes the size of...well... the hole in the ozone layer.

To answer the OP -- yes, global warming is bad for our planet and no -- this is not part of the reputed cycle of warm, cool stages on our planet. This is a documented happening in the last one hundred years and those still cramming their heads in the sand in refusal to accept that truth are the biggest contributors to inaction towards dealing with it.

It's downright creepy, actually.

Come on! You are just a victim to the liberal media lykopis! ;)

It's hilarious that both of you are super serial.

@Living_Monstrosity said:

@Glitch_Spawn said:

@lykopis said:

**sigh**

And yet again, I see wilful ignorance displayed. There are incredibly intelligent and well reasoned contributions on this thread and yet, I still see people discount information in favour of poorly supported opinions with holes the size of...well... the hole in the ozone layer.

To answer the OP -- yes, global warming is bad for our planet and no -- this is not part of the reputed cycle of warm, cool stages on our planet. This is a documented happening in the last one hundred years and those still cramming their heads in the sand in refusal to accept that truth are the biggest contributors to inaction towards dealing with it.

It's downright creepy, actually.

Come on! You are just a victim to the liberal media lykopis! ;)

It's hilarious that both of you are super serial.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

@RazzaTazz: Oh, I believe in global warming. And I'm not just going to write it off as the off-season of an ice-age. My point was that in order to get more people on the cause we need to show them how this thing effects is, human beings.

My thing about global warming being neutral to the planet is that the earth will keep spinning, with or without us and we're being naïve to think we're killing the planet, when we're killin our selves and taking some species down with us. We as a human race is taking the earth for granted and we need to stop and repair the damage. But we won't until we find a common ground.

@BumpyBoo said:

The people of Tuvalu seem to think so....

Easy for me to say though - I live in the mountains XD

This actually fits in my argument. Potential human Extinction, we're killing our own people through our actions. Yet we never see these people as the poster child for global warming. Its always some soft image.

@lykopis: never said this a natural occurrence, and never did I deny global warming.

@Agent9149 said:

@lykopis: never said this a natural occurrence, and never did I deny global warming.

Wasn't aiming at you actually. And yes, this will destroy humanity if left unchecked, but also other life-forms.

There is only so many computer generated graphics showing coastal cities submerged under water and islands disappearing completely you can show. The message has been delivered (to be fair, this is my take personally, maybe it's not as exposed and accessible in other countries) in terms of how it will specifically affect humanity.

What do you propose be done to push your take on it? If you had the opportunity to address this world-wide?

@lykopis: from personal experience I know not everyone is going to agree in global warming, but I believe, and hope that there will still be a common ground we can come to. People don't like garbage, they don't like filth. That's a common ground. Something needs to be done about all the garbage in the world. We can people to help get rid of it even if they all do it for different reasons. People don't like spending money. We can show them how win, solar, and hydro electricity can save them money. People don't like to lose their homes, get sick, and be inconvenienced. We can get them to do something about to help. Get people to help themselves and indirectly help the planet.

One of the oldest questions in the world, "what's in it for me?" we need answer that question if we're ever going to get serious work done because empathy alone isn't working it seems.

@Agent9149 said:

@lykopis: from personal experience I know not everyone is going to agree in global warming, but I believe, and hope that there will still be a common ground we can come to. People don't like garbage, they don't like filth. That's a common ground. Something needs to be done about all the garbage in the world. We can people to help get rid of it even if they all do it for different reasons. People don't like spending money. We can show them how win, solar, and hydro electricity can save them money. People don't like to lose their homes, get sick, and be inconvenienced. We can get them to do something about to help. Get people to help themselves and indirectly help the planet.

One of the oldest questions in the world, "what's in it for me?" we need answer that question if we're ever going to get serious work done because empathy alone isn't working it seems.

So bloody true.

The greenhouse effect is good and is mostly water vapor;other gases are methane and carbon dioxide mostly naturally caused. If C02 is the cause for temperature change, there should have been a steady climb for the last 70 years.It's a politician-lead money scheme by Al Gore. People have an insignificant role in the climate change.