(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); When I speak of Global Warming I am not referring to the basic CO2 released by man. I am speaking of the more immediate threat idea posed by some. Now, first off I would like to point out there are peer reviewed papers on both sides, both with much scientific detail involved.

This is a tough subject – kind of like religion.

Everyone has strong beliefs and they really-really believe they know what’s right. This is what makes me most uneasy about “Global Warming”. We don’t know enough about our planet to know for sure – but the environmentalists act like religious fanatics ready to destroy our economy for a “better world and a better way” (I have a BSEE and a BA degree so know a litle about what I still DONT KNOW).

No argument from me that we must reduce CO2 emissions and do a better job of looking after our world. BUT I’m not convinced of the science or the economic arguments behind the popular solutions. I think we have more time to change than some would think, but I also believe that we MUST change and do better.

Put your energy into working together and we will achieve more than if we just argue. Some of us need more patience while others need to be more honnest with themselves - but we all can and must do our part.

I've decided to post my views on it. Unfortunately, I am on my iPad so please forgive my grammatical and spelling errors.

There is no doubt that CO2 emissions have an effect on the atmosphere. Like e... said, I don't it having the immediate effect some people say. Before you start saying I am ignoring evidence, there are also peer review essays going against it, with research as well. I cannot post it since I'm using this dam iPad, so when I get to my computer I will, once again I apologize.

By the way, it isn't a yahoo article. Anyways, studies have been done that show we are actually having less of an effect on the atmosphere than originally thought.

God will save us anyway so don't worry or you will go to hell :carling:

See now, I'm no blind environmentalist and I'm aware that some of the changes required may do too much damage to our ecconomy for it to be worth it. In all honesty, while the environment is important, if we have complete ecconomical colapse we will have millions unemployed, shacks/shanty towns will appear, disease will spread and waste will increase. This is counter productive at best and completely without compassion at it's worst.

I want to save the environment from the devestation that we're causing, and the scientific literature I've read tends to agree that Global Warming is a pressing issue that we're causing. If we can reasonably reverse it, we should try, even if it somewhat damages the ecconomy. I wouldn't however support rediculous fearmongering and hippy movements just because they think they're righteous, especially if we have to destroy our ecconomy to do it as I've seen how the quality of life drops with a poor economy.

When it all comes down to it, I support the evironmentalists in most cases because our one and only planet is more important than an economy that can be rebuilt, especially as I, as a socialist, feel our capitalist economy is broken to begin with and could do with being replaced anyway. But I accept that some polution is necessary to maintain a decent quality of life.



Indeed, this is one of those issues where there's not a scientific concensus yet, however that said, while some may have over-estimated the effect we have on the evironment, you'll be hard-pressed to find a scientist who will deny that Global Warming is both happening and it's happening because of human industrialism. These are facts. The real controversy, if you could even call it a controversy, is the severety of Global Warming. But then amongst scientists it's not controversial to be wrong, it's only controversial to refuse to admit it if you are proven wrong, so when someone says, "Oh actually your Global Warming model is incorrect we actually cause 34% less heating than previously though" for example, scientists don't get defensive, they simply review the new information and refine their findings.

Really, I propose the debate should be simply this. What do you think should be done about Global Warming and why?

Why do I feel that would be a better debate? Because it's a constructive debate where people can compromise and reconsider positions on how they can tackle an issue. It could potensially be resolved so it's ultimately a better discussion. Plus, if you don't think Global Warming is real, quite frankly you're ignorant of the data at this point.

Thank you. I agree on the last part, but most of the members on here are either trolls or immature kids. I didn't feel that the debate would have gone over too well. In fact, look at the God vs. Fact thread.

Anyways, the problem is the estimations vary largely with peer reviewed essays on both sides of the argument. I know I mention peer review a lot, but I honestly think you need at least one on your side. Because I know little on the sciences of the earth, and I would like to have someone who does review his work.

Not sure if this is a wee bit off topic..
Industrialization has definitely caused widespread pollution to our planet ,whether we read/hear news of and or scientific data being presented regarding global warming.
As the population(as a whole) expands,so will our demand and need for food and goods.
As demand pushes,supply will have no other choice but to shove.
It's a neverending vicious cycle,if you will.
Therefore, humandkind must find better production process alternatives that minimizes pollution,a by-product of industrialization.

I see what your saying, but pollution and global warming are two completely different topics. Pollution is directly negative, not debatable in the least.

Indeed, the major issues however are that the long term effects of Global Warming will likely do things people are not expecting. Firstly the salinity of the sea will change due to the increase in ice meltage in the ice caps. This will kill many species of fish and drastically effect our fishing trade. Secondly the decrease in air humidity will create what is known as the dustbowl effect, particularly in in the central US states, ie. Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico; in southern Europe, ie. Spain, Italy and Greece; and in Central China and India. This will cause exceptional levels of soil errosion making it much harder to grow crops. Lastly, the Sahara, Navada, Syrian, Gobi and Kalahari deserts will all grow in size as air precipitation falls.

Everyone knows the story, the sea level rising will cause the lowland areas in Philipines, South China, Bangladesh, Egypt, UK, Netherlands, France, Greece, and the lowlaying states in USA, ie. Florida, Louisiana, Mississipi, Virginia and North Carolina... these can all expect exceptional levels of flooding. London, Amsterdam, Athens, New Orleans, Maimi, Dhaka and Guangzhou are some of the major cities that would be underwater. This will then be followed up by intense storms and damage to the ozone layer causing extreme sun-burn and heatstroke epidemics. But these would be obvious and are not the true threat.

Put simply, yes, people are aware of the flooding and natural disasters being possible, but by increasing carbon emmissions we may well starve the planet first. Increasing the deserts size, causing dustbowls and killing off a large percentage of the fish population are all likely to happen if Global Warming continues way before any major weather changes or sea level rising is detected. This is why this is a major concern. The flooding and huge storms etc. can't be argued against, but de-salinisation of the ocean and the dustbowl effect are gradual and much harder to prove. As these would be the first effects, by the time we realise how serious it's getting and react it would be too late, our food production industry would be damaged beyond repair.

Thanks all for some really good points. I've enjoyed reading your comments - not your normal NGU topic, but very relivant to what really matters.

We can (individually) make a differance, and by our example begin to change others arround us.