What Do You Think of GLOBAL WARMING?

[Michaelgoround]

Originally Posted by videotoast

Human beings (hell all living organisms) do better in warmer environments!!!!

Even Polar bears?

[videotoast]

Originally Posted by Michaelgoround

Even Polar bears?

The oldest known polar bear in the Arctic lived 32 years. The oldest known polar bear in a zoological park lived 45 years.

Here's an article from 2007 that says they do alright in warming climates.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elieve-it.html

[Michaelgoround]

Originally Posted by videotoast

Human beings (hell all living organisms) do better in warmer environments!!!!

Originally Posted by videotoast

The oldest known polar bear in the Arctic lived 32 years. The oldest known polar bear in a zoological park lived 45 years.

Here's an article from 2007 that says they do alright in warming climates.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elieve-it.html

As you can see from above you said that all living orgainisims are doing better, but form the artilce and your quote I derive that Polar bears are not doing better they are simply not doing as badly as some would have you think. I am saying here

Originally Posted by Michaelgoround

Even Polar bears?

that not all animals thrive in warmer weather, some actually decrease in number. Though I doubt our current change in temperatures would have any adverse affect on any animal.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by videotoast

The oldest known polar bear in the Arctic lived 32 years. The oldest known polar bear in a zoological park lived 45 years.

Here's an article from 2007 that says they do alright in warming climates.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elieve-it.html

That was most likely due to the fact that food was abundant at the zoo as well as having 'round the clock caretakers. Indoor cats live a lot longer than outdoor or wild cats living in the same climate zones. Cats/dogs/and yes, even Polar bears, are SAFER, and live longer when kept out of the wild where so much other than weather can and does shorten lifespan.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by MuniAddict

That was most likely due to the fact that food was abundant at the zoo as well as having 'round the clock caretakers. Indoor cats live a lot longer than outdoor or wild cats living in the same climate zones. Cats/dogs/and yes, even Polar bears, are SAFER, and live longer when kept out of the wild where so much other than weather can and does shorten lifespan.

Even humans live longer in captivity.

This goes for married men, and men in prison.

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Even humans live longer in captivity.

This goes for married men, and men in prison.

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

1) Should wild animals become a thing of the past?
2) I bet animals in the wold live better lives than spending them in a few feet of cage.
3) Even if you like the place warmer, that's not an excuse to f*ck with Mother Earth, dude.

[wickedbob]

Mother Earth seems rather strong. She's been through more than anything we can put her through whether we like it or not. I mean, the oceans were basically acid for a while if I'm not mistaken.

I heard some crazy stat about how much pollution volcano explosions make.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by wickedbob

Mother Earth seems rather strong. She's been through more than anything we can put her through whether we like it or not. I mean, the oceans were basically acid for a while if I'm not mistaken.

I heard some crazy stat about how much pollution volcano explosions make.

That's right. It's all in the Bible.

[wickedbob]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

That's right. It's all in the Bible.

Thanks for having my back on that bro, I was sweating it.

[feel the light]

There are different scientific truths here on each side.

Pro CO2
1 Historically, the CO2 content of the air, over the previous 500 million years, was much higher then it is now. There is no reason to doubt that the earth will thrive at the CO2 level it thrived on for hundreds of millions of years in the past.

2 All geologists agree that the weather turned "glacial", only 1 million years ago. All geologists agree that we are at the end of a gap between ice ages, in the sense that the warming period between the last several ice ages has been 12 to 15 thousand years.

3 I have heard of no convincing reasons to believe that human caused restoration of the CO2 level in the atmosphere to levels that existed before fossil fuel formation lowered it (over hundreds of millions of years) to modern levels, can forestall the next ice age. But is it really anti scientific -anti earth life loving- or just stupid, to hope it might ? If it doesn't, all science points to a 150,000-250,000+ year ice age that will destroy all life and top soil in Canada and most of the USA, just like it did the last time. Is geology not science ? Don't people realize that without man made global warming, all of the science points to a return to ice within the next few thousand years, or hundred ? All the geology states clearly that of the last million years, it was ice all over for more then 900,000 of those years. Five long ice ages with short interlude warming periods like the one we are in now. Global warming or not, we are still in a glacial era. Perhaps the final few thousand years of life on earth, before it becomes white and solid , reflective of the sun and quiet , forever.

The anti CO2 side

1 By raising the CO2 content of the air 100 parts/million more then it is now, some scientists guess that the sea level may rise, over the next 100 years, a lot. It seems there is no straight forward way to predict how all the variables will play out. It is considered likely that sea levels will rise 2-3 feet the next hundred years. Possibly 20 or more in a few centuries. Almost everyone agrees the sea shall rise some. It is borderline to call these predictions science, in the sense that the variables are so great as to screw up the math.

2 The burning of coal is bad for so many reasons. Mercury, other crap, and the destruction of the mined land. If BS about CO2 leads to the elimination of coal burning, that would be a plus.

3 Offending the earth spirit is evil. By changing the atmosphere, we can only undo the natural balance, and cause harm. I had to include that, because that's what so many people believe. I sit on the fence on this one. There are so many dead planets out there. WTF happened to Mars ? Maybe the natural way of things is for them to die out, and we just happened to get lucky enough to be here at a time when we can change the natural death of the earth by ice, into some other fate.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by feel the light

WTF happened to Mars ?

Uh, it's 4,000,000 miles farther out from the sun, that's what. They'd be having a nice, long ice age there if they had the water to do it with...

Even Earth would be cold if we didn't have our atmosphere to hold a lot of the solar heat in. Mars has a much thinner atmosphere.

So if our climate situation is cyclical, I wonder if anyone is working on understanding what causes the cycles? If we understood that it might help us predict where things are going.

[BillyTheMountain]

Does anyone know how long til Hawaii is underwater?

And this link suggests your position on global warming is just a function of your epistemic position--epistemology is a branch of philosophy.

BTM

Swinburne Research Bank permanent link:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/23483

Download 01front.pdf (Adobe Acrobat PDF , 20.7 kB)
Download 02whole.pdf (Adobe Acrobat PDF , 405.2 kB)

Title The Relationship between Epistemic Style, Environmental
Knowledge, Trust in Environmental Scientists and Environmental Behaviour

Author(s) Farrugia, Matthew
Abstract The present research aimed to examine the effects of
individual's epistemic style on environmental knowledge, trust in
environmental scientists, and subsequently pro-environmental behaviour.
The study was comprised of 149 participants who completed an online
questionnaire utilising measures of epistemic style, trust, knowledge
and behaviour. Epistemic style was assessed by the Epistemic Preference
Indicated (EPI; Eigenberger, Critchley & Sealander’s, 2007) which
measured two negatively related dimensions named the Intellective
Position (IP; a preference for elaborated forms of thinking) and the
Default Position (DP; a preference for automatic forms of thinking). The
results supported the hypothesis that having a preference for the IP
would positively predict environmental knowledge and subsequently high
levels of pro-environmental behaviour while having a preference for the
DP would negatively predict environmental knowledge, and subsequently
low levels of pro-environmental behaviour. Contrary to expectations,
differences in epistemic style were not predictive of trust in
environmental scientists, however trust in environmental scientists did
predict pro-environmental behaviour. Suggestions for future research
include exploration of ways in which a preference for the DP could be
shifted to a preference for the IP to encourage pro-environmental
outcomes in conjunction with assessing the generalisability of the
current results to other forms of pro-social behaviour.
Publication Type Thesis (Honours)
Research Centre Swinburne University of Technology. Faculty of Life and
Social Sciences
Publication Year 2007
RFCD Code(s) 380000 Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Does anyone know how long til Hawaii is underwater?

Really, really long. Maui tops out at over 10,000'. I forget how high the Big Island's mountains are, but they're higher. Of course the cities are all a lot lower down...