Reducing your environmental footprint.

Any one in here concerned with global warming and other threats to our environment. Anyone doing anything about it?

every 10 thousand years or so the earth gors into a period of warmerer or colder temperatures, on that scale we are nearly at the yop of the hot end, so i dont really beleive in Global Warming as such, but im not up for pollution and frivulus waste of energy, i do general stuff like turning out the lihjts, and advise my parents to but energy aficent applainces

Spectrum says:

"every 10 thousand years or so the earth gors into a period of warmerer or colder temperatures, on that scale we are nearly at the yop of the hot end, so i dont really beleive in Global Warming as such, but im not up for pollution and frivulus waste of energy, i do general stuff like turning out the lihjts, and advise my parents to but energy aficent applainces"

Global Warming may or may not be the result of fossil fuels- we could argue this till the cows come home. BUT there's no way anyone can say for sure- with absolute certainty (although the vast majority of the scientific community will say that the recent climate changes are a result carbon emissions) that we have anything to do with it. But it's dangerous to assume the easiest rout. Considering whats at stake.

I'm gonna agree with what Spectrum said.

SO are both of you saying that there is NO way we have anything to do with GW?

We definitely have something to do with GW. I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff. But I'm all for protecting animals! If that's something....

I'm all in favor of doing something, just to be on the safe side.

Cryo-Wolf says:

"We definitely have something to do with GW. I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff. But I'm all for protecting animals! If that's something...."

yea i'm all for protecting animals and the rainforest

Cryo-Wolf says:

"I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff."

HA HA HA

This is my NEW fav quote. It describes my life perfectly!!

While I believe that saving animals to be a very noble thing, I'm not sure it has anything to do with global warming. But cutting down trees hurts animals and out enviroment.

Reject says:

"I'm all in favor of doing something, just to be on the safe side."

Exactly my thoughts. Never bet the farm.

Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff."

HA HA HA This is my NEW fav quote. It describes my life perfectly!! While I believe that saving animals to be a very noble thing, I'm not sure it has anything to do with global warming. But cutting down trees hurts animals and out enviroment. "

Yea, if it has anything to do against animals, I don't like it. I so want to punch Michael Vick.

But, wait, was that sarcasm or did you really mean it, cuz what I meant was I hope that I do stuff, but I probably don't, like what I think helps isn't really helping.

Cryo-Wolf says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff."

HA HA HA This is my NEW fav quote. It describes my life perfectly!! While I believe that saving animals to be a very noble thing, I'm not sure it has anything to do with global warming. But cutting down trees hurts animals and out enviroment. "

Yea, if it has anything to do against animals, I don't like it. I so want to punch Michael Vick.

But, wait, was that sarcasm or did you really mean it, cuz what I meant was I hope that I do stuff, but I probably don't, like what I think helps isn't really helping."

No it wasn't sarcasm. I don't know if you meant it to be funny but you really summed up my whole life. I mean I feel the exact same way. I try and do everything I can, but I have no idea if I'll ever make a difference.

Cryo-Wolf says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff."

HA HA HA This is my NEW fav quote. It describes my life perfectly!! While I believe that saving animals to be a very noble thing, I'm not sure it has anything to do with global warming. But cutting down trees hurts animals and out enviroment. "

Yea, if it has anything to do against animals, I don't like it. I so want to punch Michael Vick.

"

Is he that dog fighting jerk?

Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff."

HA HA HA This is my NEW fav quote. It describes my life perfectly!! While I believe that saving animals to be a very noble thing, I'm not sure it has anything to do with global warming. But cutting down trees hurts animals and out enviroment. "

Yea, if it has anything to do against animals, I don't like it. I so want to punch Michael Vick. "

Is he that dog fighting jerk? "

yup.

Cryo-Wolf says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Cryo-Wolf says:

"I try and do stuff, but I don't know whether I really do stuff."

HA HA HA This is my NEW fav quote. It describes my life perfectly!! While I believe that saving animals to be a very noble thing, I'm not sure it has anything to do with global warming. But cutting down trees hurts animals and out enviroment. "

Yea, if it has anything to do against animals, I don't like it. I so want to punch Michael Vick. "

Is he that dog fighting jerk? "

yup."

Allegedly.

Noir_Dark says:

"SO are both of you saying that there is NO way we have anything to do with GW?"

OH GOD NO, i dont think its as bad as people make out but i know that humans have an impact on the environment

Spectrum says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"SO are both of you saying that there is NO way we have anything to do with GW?"

OH GOD NO, i dont think its as bad as people make out but i know that humans have an impact on the environment"

I live in the far north and I can't believe whats going on around here. I'm seeing more and more invasive species, every summer gets warmer and warmer, the winters are getting shorter and shorter. I've lived here all my life and the signs are obvious. There's something wrong.

Noir_Dark says:

"Spectrum says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"SO are both of you saying that there is NO way we have anything to do with GW?"

OH GOD NO, i dont think its as bad as people make out but i know that humans have an impact on the environment"

I live in the far north and I can't believe whats going on around here. I'm seeing more and more invasive species, every summer gets warmer and warmer, the winters are getting shorter and shorter. I've lived here all my life and the signs are obvious. There's something wrong."

Well you should come to Michigan then, are Summers are still way to short and our Winters are way to long.

Gambler says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Spectrum says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"SO are both of you saying that there is NO way we have anything to do with GW?"

OH GOD NO, i dont think its as bad as people make out but i know that humans have an impact on the environment"

I live in the far north and I can't believe whats going on around here. I'm seeing more and more invasive species, every summer gets warmer and warmer, the winters are getting shorter and shorter. I've lived here all my life and the signs are obvious. There's something wrong."

Well you should come to Michigan then, are Summers are still way to short and our Winters are way to long."

It's the same way here in Chicago.

I Live further north than MI and Chicago. If you're ever looking at a map of Canada look for the Hudson Bay, I live just south of it. Any further north and the trees go away.

Noir_Dark says:

"Spectrum says:although the vast majority of the scientific community will say that the recent climate changes are a result carbon emissions"

I really didn't want to comment on this matter, but I don't think you could have made a more grossly incorrect statement. Much of the "data" that supports global warming is either exaggerated, terribly misinterpreted, or completely fabricated.

NiteFly says:

"Noir_Dark says:

"Spectrum says:although the vast majority of the scientific community will say that the recent climate changes are a result carbon emissions"

I really didn't want to comment on this matter, but I don't think you could have made a more grossly incorrect statement. Much of the "data" that supports global warming is either exaggerated, terribly misinterpreted, or completely fabricated."

By who and why?

If you want a serious argument, ask a serious question. I don't have the time, nor patience to explain the entire issue to you which is precisely what you are asking. I am mainly taking issue with the consensus that has taken hold in much of the general public that not only is Global Warming a problem caused by man, but that the issue is completely cut and dry and the evidence is irrefutable. Climate trend data indicates that the global climate is in a constant state of flux for a number of reasons, and much of it indicates that man is not a major cause (if at all) in climate change. Many reputable scientists and studies exist that seem to refute the idea of man's role in global warming. Based on everything that I have read on the issue I believe that the global warming issue is largely a hoax, and most of the data in support is at best inconclusive.

Who and why in a nutshell:

Scientists: Global warming is a hot issue currently. Fame? Research funding?

Politicians/Corporations: Creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust can be good for a career, so long as you can shift the blame elsewhere. Take a look at the poster child for global warming: Al Gore. Gore strip mines his family's land, his home's energy usage is off the charts compared to the national average, and his partial ownership of one of these silly new "carbon credit" companies gives him personal financial stake in the global warming mentality to take hold. Also acting as a crusader for the environment takes advantage of the growing environmentalist vote.

Global Warming is becoming business for a lot of people. There is reason to be skeptical of certain findings.

Noir_Dark says:

"SO are both of you saying that there is NO way we have anything to do with GW?"

Here is my problem. Where is one of the most, according to scientists, telling signs of Global warming...Australia. Australia is home of not A hole in the ozone but THE hole in the ozone. Explain to me why, if WE are the cause, that when America supposedly pollutes to outrageous levels and china who has the highest population can't help but put out pollution doesn't have massive holes in the ozone layer above their respective land masses. If we are the cause then why is it Australia, a very sparsley populated continent (based on land mass) that is pretty enviromentally friendly, that has the massive ozone layer hole.

I just wont to throw in my peace, Its all fine us sitting here say that, I dont think and im not sure, But what IF it is bad, I plan on having kids, I dont see the point of us sitting on our hands while the world does not fall down around is it possible that the things we do, will effect people to come, do we want to be rember as the poeple who should have done something but did not want to.

We rape this world, Cut down forest , Kill and destroy homes for oil , fill the world with god knows what, But yet it is not are job to fix it, I am no eco warrior but I am no fool ethier, If you took a humans blood, if you filled that Humna with harmful gasses, Will it just turn over and be fine No.

The earth is are home, Just like your house, your flat even the little things go a long way to help, So dont think it is not your problem , even if it is a small issue now, do we want to wait for it to become a big issue, I know I dont!

And here's my two-penneth worth.

Every piece of evidence, every experiment they have performed, every attempt to disprove Global Warming, has added more proof that it's a real and extremely dangerous threat.

I would rather do the best that I can to help stop it coming than sit around doing nothing and pretending everything's alright.

The hole in the ozone layer is a side issue to what is properly termed an "enhanced greenhouse effect" (there is a natural one). The ozone hole was caused by CFCs which rip up ozone. The hole is in Antartica, not Australia, because of the way global wind patterns work. Basically the CFCs get funnelled there and can't escape. Fortunately, this is one of the environmental success stories as the restriction on CFC use has lead to the hole shrinking.

Personally though, I think we have mother nature on the ropes. She started it, we'll finish it.

Walkingstone says:

"Every piece of evidence, every experiment they have performed, every attempt to disprove Global Warming, has added more proof that it's a real and extremely dangerous threat."

Again this is the type of argument in the debate that I find appalling. This type of argument is unverifiable because it is completely untrue. There is much valid evidence to oppose the idea that humans are turning the world in the sauna. You cannot believe everything that the media, politicians, and many large corporations say about global warming without some bit of skepticism. The opposing viewpoint is highly underrepresented in mainstream culture (at least in America) making it easy to feel that there is no real opposing side to the issue. This is not about sitting on our hands and assuming that everything is alright, it is about understanding an issue that is promoted largely by nut-cases with an agenda and with something to gain.

If you live your life in a frenzy about what could very well amount to be a non-issue you are doing no better for yourself than those who "sit around doing nothing and pretending everything's alright." Not that you sound like you are exactly in a frenzy, but there are many in positions of power who would resort to tragically drastic measures to cure an issue that they don't properly understand.

All of that having said, just because I have not seen enough evidence to allow myself to believe the hype doesn't mean that I am for wasting our resources haphazardly (which is the broad brush that proponents of global warming enjoy painting us with). Philosophically I am in many ways a conservationist, however I have no interest in allowing it to control my life and inconvenience me. I am also susceptible to both logic and proper evidence. If it turns out that proper evidence exists to demonstrate that man is causing the Earth to warm in a way that will cause irreparable damage I will change my tune. The problem is that sufficient evidence simply does not exist. Take away many of the arguments which are constructed purely out of convenience, not scientific research or fact, and you may find that global warming is a limping, dying animal.

i agree with nite fly, about this its what i said in my first post. Although am against cutting down tree and what not and pollutiion. but i thikn "GLOBAL WARMING" is something that has been almost made up.

I tend to not believe media much. All the scientists, the believers, the non-believers........they want money. That's why I take "An Inconvinient Truth" with some sceptisism. He wants profit more than anything. Then there was that whole documentary about how it was fake, but I think that they were trying to appeal to non-believers. I'm kind of neutral in the stance. I don't like people getting scared, like with that whole stupid flood warning in my town (side note: I wanna punch whoever said it was gonna happen). I'm probably not gonna change, but I save a lot of energy anyway.

NiteFly says:

"Walkingstone says:

"Every piece of evidence, every experiment they have performed, every attempt to disprove Global Warming, has added more proof that it's a real and extremely dangerous threat."

Again this is the type of argument in the debate that I find appalling. This type of argument is unverifiable because it is completely untrue. There is much valid evidence to oppose the idea that humans are turning the world in the sauna. You cannot believe everything that the media, politicians, and many large corporations say about global warming without some bit of skepticism.

"

Perhaps it would be better to have asked why I believe as I do rather than attack me for having an appalling argument or presenting unverifiable evidence. One could say the same for your perspective and opinions but I see no need to bring this down to name calling and spitefulness. Needless to say, my own beliefs (as we are bringing this down to the level of philosophy rather than facts and figures) are that the evidence so far tends towards global warming. The main argument of those against is that the sun is at a point in its cycle called Solar Max. Recent evidence shows that this is untrue. So, if not from the Sun, where is this additional radiation coming from?

Here we go.......

Walkingstone says:

"NiteFly says:

"Walkingstone says:

"Every piece of evidence, every experiment they have performed, every attempt to disprove Global Warming, has added more proof that it's a real and extremely dangerous threat."

Again this is the type of argument in the debate that I find appalling. This type of argument is unverifiable because it is completely untrue. There is much valid evidence to oppose the idea that humans are turning the world in the sauna. You cannot believe everything that the media, politicians, and many large corporations say about global warming without some bit of skepticism.

"

Perhaps it would be better to have asked why I believe as I do rather than attack me for having an appalling argument or presenting unverifiable evidence. One could say the same for your perspective and opinions but I see no need to bring this down to name calling and spitefulness. Needless to say, my own beliefs (as we are bringing this down to the level of philosophy rather than facts and figures) are that the evidence so far tends towards global warming. The main argument of those against is that the sun is at a point in its cycle called Solar Max. Recent evidence shows that this is untrue. So, if not from the Sun, where is this additional radiation coming from?"

One could say the same about me, but they would be wrong. My impression is that evidence for global warming is insufficient. The claim you have made is that there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. There is no need to ask you why you would have formed such an opinion because anyone on either side of the debate that refuses to lend credence to any evidence on the opposing side has already made up their mind without thoroughly examining both sides.

Also there is no need to turn my previous post into an ad hominem attack, because I was attacking the substance of your post, not you as a person. Thirdly please don't confuse my own turn to philosophy as an argument for my position. I made the statement in contradiction to your earlier implication that those who are opposed to the global warming debate just want to "sit around doing nothing and pretending everything's alright". This is an unfair depiction painted by many proponents of global warming to further discredit the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them (a true and highly unfair ad hominem attack). I offer my own personal beliefs only to further explain my own individual stance on the issue, not as factual evidence.

This is a very multi-faceted argument on both sides, and the solar max is far from being the only piece of evidence opposed to global warming. There is very much good literature and scientific study to date (particularly some of the most current research on climate patterns throughout the history of the planet) that should cast at least some small shadow of doubt for even the most staunch advocate of global warming as long as they are willing approach it with an open mind. The problem is that many are not willing to do so. As I have already mentioned I am not opposed to the idea of global warming in principle. I do believe that most of the evidence is misrepresented, misused, or inconclusive. If proper evidence is accumulated to the contrary I am willing to listen and even change my stance.

Finally, any true scientist would vehemently disagree with your stance on the degradation of an argument into philosophy. True science is heavily rooted in philosophy, and to a certain degree the two are inseparable.

I think we're looking at a combination of effects both natural and artificial. In terms of an enhanced green house effect, that's all us and it is real. You can't just chuck gases into the air and expect nothing to happen. Little bit of physics (because I'm not a physicist and too much hurts my alcohol ridden brain), cause equals effect. Blame Newton, it was his idea. You can't do something and then expect nothing to happen.

That said, it's the big fish that need to change. Britain only counts for 2% of carbon production. It needs the big industries in the US and increasingly China and India to fall in line. Frankly, it wouldn't make a lick of difference if the rest of us left our ovens, lights, TVs, microwaves and heating on all day without your big polluters cutting their emissions.

BTW. Philosophy isn't science. A scientist's philosophy is to be objective in all things. In other words, if you can't stick some numbers on your theories, than they don't mean anything. I'm not saying philosophy is worthless, but philosophy is about whys, science is about hows.

I never claimed Philosophy is science.

NiteFly says:

"If you want a serious argument, ask a serious question. I don't have the time, nor patience to explain the entire issue to you which is precisely what you are asking. I am mainly taking issue with the consensus that has taken hold in much of the general public that not only is Global Warming a problem caused by man, but that the issue is completely cut and dry and the evidence is irrefutable. Climate trend data indicates that the global climate is in a constant state of flux for a number of reasons, and much of it indicates that man is not a major cause (if at all) in climate change. Many reputable scientists and studies exist that seem to refute the idea of man's role in global warming. Based on everything that I have read on the issue I believe that the global warming issue is largely a hoax, and most of the data in support is at best inconclusive.Who and why in a nutshell:
Scientists: Global warming is a hot issue currently. Fame? Research funding?Politicians/Corporations: Creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust can be good for a career, so long as you can shift the blame elsewhere. Take a look at the poster child for global warming: Al Gore. Gore strip mines his family's land, his home's energy usage is off the charts compared to the national average, and his partial ownership of one of these silly new "carbon credit" companies gives him personal financial stake in the global warming mentality to take hold. Also acting as a crusader for the environment takes advantage of the growing environmentalist vote.Global Warming is becoming business for a lot of people. There is reason to be skeptical of certain findings."

Thank you for having the patience and taking the time to answer my serious question. Earlier in the thread I said something to the effect of ‘no one can say for certain that man is responsible for GW’. Some of the best minds on the environmental battlefield (David Suzuki, Noam Mohr) seem to be certain that we are at least part of the cause. And some great minds say otherwise. What I’m saying is that there is a chance- a very BIG chance that we are. No one can say for certain. But for the sake of the argument lets say that there is a small chance that we have anything to do with all this GW stuff. Are we going to take a chance and keep on keeping on? Think about what’s at stake. Never bet the farm no mater how good the hand.

While there is money to be made in green science, there is much much more money to be made in oil.

I’m not going to defend Al Gore. And as far as I’m concerned “Carbon Credits” are a duck and cover solution.