U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

You've [+]'d posts representing vastly different viewpoints in this thread, so I can't really get a read on what exactly you're trying to say here.

Well it's basically this:
First of all, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
The entire earth is a giant living organism and we should take care of it.
Just because there is no proof of climate change does not mean we shouldn't respect the Earth and take care to not damage it.
Some places are so polluted you can actually die from going there. A friend from my church came back from China with less than 40% lung capacity and a death sentence from her doctors saying she would need a transplant because it is impossible for her lungs to ever heal from this. Thankfully with a lot of prayer her lungs are now over 80% and her doctors are dumbfounded by this.
Anyways, my point is that even if air pollution is only a locolized issue, it is a serious issue, and whether or not it effects the actual climate is no excuse to ignore the issue.

No, but basing your entire argument on an unproven theory, and then demean anyone who has an opposing viewpoint is not supporting the argument at all.

The US is not the main culprit on the Earth's pollution problem, but yet somehow the US is the one that is being damaged by it the most, due to unreasonable demands by the churchgoers of the climate religion.

I've made no demands at all. I just think it's best to always use caution regardless of what you do.

Aren't you a Christian?

You certainly aren't a cleric of the Church of Al Gore.

I don't see what believing in Jesus has to do with any of this...

You and King have added zero to the discussion. Asking again, why are you here?

Because you already devoted your entire soul towards one being.

You can't be pious towards two different religions. It goes against the definition of piety.

I have no idea what you are trying to say...

Show us the so-called evidence you have proving that climate change is happening at the rate your doomsday predictions is occurring.

Don't worry, we can wait for you to make something up.

It's not about climate change, it's about how climate scientists are going around with their doomsday prophecies that the earth is going to end in 50 or so years, and anyone who asks for evidence is treated as a denier for asking for evidence.

In other words, they are devoted to their beliefs to the point that they created their own religion, and damn anyone who says anything against their beliefs. The kind of following you would see from any devoted follower in any faith.

I share the sentiment however evidence of climate change is overwhelming. The very first post in this thread relates that in the report that was released last year. The evidence is irrefutable. There is no such discussion within the scientific community of whether or not climate change is actually occurring. People denying this have no evidence otherwise. Their attacks are nothing but empty sentiment and politically-aligned gibberish.

It's funny because we can have an anti-vaxxer thread where the large majority of posters will stand with the evidence science has gathered supporting their effective usage because the consensus is that vaccines are safe. Yet, on this topic, suddenly a consensus isn't good enough. It's a religion despite a global research effort producing empirical evidence that corroborates the same conclusion - that human activity has warmed the planet to a degree that is detrimental to life here.

Ok, but you made a huge jump by adding me into this group just because I said the issue shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. I prefer to rationally dissect all the info and understand the little pieces until the big picture starts to come into focus before I make any kind of claims, but one this I do claim is that caution should always be exercised in all things.

You're like one of those posters who rolls up into a job thread and asks for the latest sets knowing full well they're in the OP. The information has been posted. If there's anything you'd like to contribute, start with those.

I haven't seen much science against the OP. Only Saevel recently made much sense in the opposition. I don't have much to offer in the area of science, but I do stand to reason that sound reasoning should be used and not panic and not denial either.

There is definitely something wrong when the temp is so high that the rivers where I live have become too warm for fish to live, driving the fish population to near extinction and all the glaciers are gone.

Getting acquainted with the science really helps filter out the nonsense. This is a good resource for understanding the fundamentals: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Nice non-reply? You know what I said is right, which is why you won't address it.

What does a valid dissenting discussion on the topic look like to you? What exactly are you trying to accomplish besides pushing your material and making fun of anyone who doesn't buy into it?

Heck, all you've shown that's "irrefutable" is your stubborness on the matter. The rest is a bunch of "take their word for it -- no seriously, you have to because nobody will give you actual data".

This is incorrect, the earth is not a giant living being. Gia theory has always been a haven of those with a very loose grasp of reality.

The earth is a giant floating rock. It's such a massively large rock that it was able to maintain it's own atmosphere. Furthermore the center of the rock is a giant super dense blob of semi-molten iron that's been rotating since stellar impacts set it in motion a few billion years ago when it was a giant blog of hot space debris. That ancient spinning iron creates a magnetic shield that redirects and blocks solar radiation, especially gamma rays, from a giant floating nuclear fireball many times larger then said rock.

Those two facts, when combined with the particular distance this rock is from that floating fireball combine to give the conditions that proteins can self organize into single celled organisms. Those organisms were then eradicated and had to start over again. And then they were eradicated again, multiple times until they finally were stable enough to survive to mutate into multicelled organisms. And thus life infected this piece of space rock.

There is absolutely nothing magical or mystical about this process. This planet, our solar system, galaxy and the universe at large operates on a scale so far beyond humans that we're little more then bacteria on a rock in comparison. There is no "delicate balance", never was and never will be. The earth doesn't care about what life forms infest it. It will not adapt itself to suit those life forms, they either learn to survive and adapt to change or they get eradicated and possible replaced by something else. We couldn't damage the earth if we poured our very heart and soul into it. All we would do is hurt ourselves and this rock would continue existing without so much as noticing our presence.

I really can't impress upon you the sheer scale we're dealing with. People seem to think a decade or a hundred years is somehow important ... to this planet that's nothing. The entirety of our written history is absolutely nothing to a planet. The span of time since we started walking upright and now is minute compared to this planet's history.

To give you an idea of the time lines we're talking about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

Earth is about 4.7 billion years old.

4,700,000,000

After 700,000,000 years life got it right and single celled organisms survived long enough to mutate.

1,200,000 years ago the first creature that could resemble modern humans appears, the ancestor of both homo sapiens and the neanderthal.

160,000 years ago homo sapiens evolved, no complex speech and only basic tool making but we have finally arrived and start to develop rapidly.

60,000 years ago, we got far enough that we can start moving around.

20,000 years ago, we now represent modern day humans, have complex speech and complex tool making.

40~50 years ago, "Global Warming!" alarm goes off and revolves around a couple of decades of consistent warming.


Does this put things in perspective?

The earth's been around a helluva lot longer then us and it's natural climate cycles have destroyed more species then we can ever count. There have been multiple mass extinctions, all caused by planetary scale events. The idea that our weak *** human race, with our current technology, could possibly cause a planetary scale event is preposterous.

Stop tying pollution to global warming, those are completely separate things. "Global Warming" is the theory that man's use of fossil fuels is causing the earth to radically warm up at an unprecedented speed that, if unchecked, will result in the earth boiling and us all dieing. It's a theory that has exactly zero evidence supporting it but a ton of believers, like faith healing. Pollution on the other hand can be measured and mitigated.

Any conversation that begins with the question of whether or not global warming is real or if humans are the primary cause is a non-starter. It's that simple. It's not my stubbornness. It's the actual state of the scientific discussion. Why debate basic facts? So again, why are you here if you have nothing to contribute?

So you proved my point. According to you, there is nothing to contribute that isn't already in line with your thoughts on the matter. Write down stuff in a journal if you want to have a discussion with something that won't dissent. If you can't handle it, don't make threads.

In the meantime, whether I wholly agree with him or not, Saevel is actually contributing and actually being interesting. I'll try and focus my efforts on him instead of the guy who just wants to say "lol" and "stop it you gaiz" and then complain when other people aren't contributing in the exact way he likes.

If you want to discuss whether or not AGW is real then you're about 30 years behind. Have fun with Saevel in the 80s?

@some posts above: claiming this is a topic of only us politics is incredibly narrowminded this involves all nations on the entire planet you're not the only one.

Either way it seems at times the opposing team completely loses sight of the actual debate just to score points, whether the climate is changing is not up to debate at all, but only the human impact(contribution)on the phenomenon.

That is not what I meant by giant living organism.
I don't believe in that mystical gia ***.
But the Earth is a super organism, just like you and I are.
The human body contains so many micro organisms that they out number our own cells 10 to 1, we are a super colony, just like the Earth, and just like with us, if the microbe balance is off we can end up with serious health problems. The same is true with the Earth.

No it's not, seriously it's not.

This is what I'm talking about. As a human you can only naturally understand human related things and attempt to associate and interpret everything in a human way. Planets are not human, neither are stars, moons or constellations. We try to think of our planet as a living entity because we worshiped it for thousands of years, this is incorrect.

There is no "balance". Stop thinking that this moment in time or that moment in time is somehow "balanced". It shows a very short term thinking. I've posted many graphs that illustrate the Earth at various stages of it's existence. The vast majority of that had ***to do with humans, we hadn't even evolved yet. The planets "climate" is governed on a planetary scale and is effected by planetary events. We are not capable of doing serious harm to that because we lack the technology and energy to create planetary events.

Most of what your saying is *** pushed into the universities during the 60's and 70's as part of the cold war Soviet Union's subversion of Western nations. It was part of a larger anti-industry propaganda package put in place in their attempt to destabilize our economy, it succeeded in some places while failing in others. After they collapsed their propaganda remained as a thought virus and memeplex.

Here is something you need to sit down and read.

http://climaterealists.com/?id=3939

They do a good job of describing the various states Earth has been in.

Early in it's formation it looked a whole lot like this



Is that "balanced" for you?

Until two billion years ago Earth didn't have free oxygen in it's atmosphere in any significant quantities. The atmosphere of two+ billion year old earth would have been highly toxic to today's life forms. It changed because life had finally evolved bacteria with photosynthesis which enabled Oxygen to be liberated from it's chemical bonds and thus "climate change" happened. Thought to be honest it had already happened multiple times before, there was even a period, really early, when a nearby supernova caused a cascade of gamma-rays that sterilized the planet. Life had to start over. How's that for "balance" and "climate change".

Even two billion years ago the Sun mercilessly beat down and was irradiating the planet with it's own gamma rays, a human would of died rather quickly even assuming it could breath the toxic atmosphere. But there was plenty of life, that is until all that free oxygen built up and resulted in massive oxidation on a planetary scale that wiped out nearly all early life. Only microorganisms that could survive in an oxygen rich environment lived, the rest died off. Another mass extinction on a planetary scale two billion years ago.

Eight hundred million years ago the earth froze like a giant ice cube. Total global glaciation, and another mass extinction. The oceans froze, that is how cold it got. And this has happened several times before then, freezing into an ice cube then later melting.



About 500 million years ago the earth radically warmed up. Warmed up so much that there was no polar ice caps, virtually all the previous ice had melted and the entire planet was a warm moist tropical climate. Life exploded into dazzling diversity, until later being wiped out by a meteor and a few more ice ages.

We actually just got out of one such ice age, though it had a small break a few centuries ago.

Does any of this paint a picture of some mystic serene "balance"? Those continents we call home, yeah they've been moved around a lot.



If after educating yourself on our planets history, which is far longer and more diverse then our own, you still think there is some sort of symbiotic mystical "balance" between us and this rock, well then there isn't much else to discuss.

Yet it wasn't, it's a plausible climate model.

But as you deny climate models, I can see why you draw that conclusion.

It's a plausible climate model... only if exact criteria are met. Experts at the US DHS determined that nuclear bombs dropped over most modern cities would not create a firestorm that could punch through the stratosphere. Therefore, unless countries are dropping a ton of nukes over areas that have no business being nuked, a nuclear winter scenario is unlikely.

The belief in man made global warming is actually a bit more dangerous than ordinary religion.

It's more like Scientology in that the basis for the religion is seeded in money with the people actively involved knowing this. Any attempts to even remotely question the flow of money is met with overwhelming force.

It's actually rooted in Marxism and covered in Racism. Or is forcing the world's poorest countries in Africa to use the most expensive and inefficient sources of power considered green?

Ecosystem/super colony = same thing.
They both require precise barance.

Think if you had an herb garden and you killed all the spiders because ick. Now you have to many aphids. If you have too many aphids in your herb garden you're gonna have a bad thyme.

Unhuh, whatever you say, bub. Quite frankly nuclear anything besides power is in the "unlikely" category.