UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

View Poll Results: Climate Change: Manmade or Natural?
Global Warming - Burning Fossil Fuels is going to kill the planet! 21 75.00%
Global Warming - It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade CO2 is not causing it. 0 0%
Global Cooling - Chlorofluorocarbons from your fridge are killing the enviroment! 0 0%
Global Cooling -It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade chemicals are not causing it. 0 0%
Climate Change - Does not exist. 0 0%
Climate Change - Exists but mankind is not causing it/can not do anything to stop or change it it. 7 25.00%
Acid Rain - Human Emissions are going to kill the enviroment, certainly a problem back in the 80s. 0 0%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-23-2011, 06:46 PM   #76
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Nice idea, but the problem is human beings as a species are total asshats. No-one who makes even the slightest profit out of fossil fuels is going to give up a source of income to try to solve the problems unless forced to do so.
And you really think the government isn't interested in the power it gets out of it?
Not all Humans are "Asshats," Coke-Cola recently put in a promotion to "Save the Polar Bears," and while I disagree they need saving, there are Numerous Companies and Individuals that donate Large sums to Charities and other foundations that better other's lives.

Companies need incentives, not mandates. Like, a tax credit from their original tax rate if they lower emissions by a set amount, instead of a tax hike, along with increased operating cost for lower profit, and mandates they need to comply with. Personally, I think the ability to advertise to the masses they are "Green" is plenty, and Government need not get involved.

Quote:
Personally, I'd rather give up personal freedoms when the alternative is letting smug self-centered bastards completely fuck us all over, in the same way I'm sure you'd prefer that the personal freedoms of, say, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were respected over allowing innocent people to be gunned down.
So you're rather give up your personal freedoms to some other Smug self-centered bastard who Want to fuck us all over while claiming they're doing it for our benefit, then have the ability to get rich yourself and change the world in your own way?

Let's see, you mean the Columbine Killers had a right to kill people? I didn't know that. I thought the right was just to bear Arms, raise a militia, and have the ability to rebel from our government should it attempt to overstep it's bounds too greatly like King George III did.

Obviously if they had wanted to murder people, they would have done so, with whatever tools they had. Gun Laws wouldn't have stopped them, Criminals will always have weapons, it's the law abiding that suffer from that regulation. If you think making the connection to Columbine and gun control validates your beliefs, think again. If someone else had had a Gun on that day, or those two students knew they were entering an area where weapons were widely carried, fewer people would have died that day, if any at all, I can guarantee it.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 07:01 PM   #77
swampert28
#009: Blastoise
 
swampert28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: here, there, everywhere...
Posts: 342
Global Warming, has always been around, it has always been naturally occuring, but our greenhouse gasses are dramatically changing our climate, and if it keeps happening, we shall kill, many or even all species on earth including us!
__________________
this(or that) is a link by the way.
swampert28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 08:10 PM   #78
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Thank you for bringing this thread back on topic.

However, you are wrong. There is great evidence in the favor of man-made Global Warming being an elaborate fraud, and I'm more apt to believe that, then believe Mankind can bring about radical climate change just by burning stuff that would naturally ooze out of the ground, or be released whenever lighting starts a fire.

Oh, and is constantly released by the exhalation of every single animal in the world..
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 02:52 AM   #79
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Thank you for bringing this thread back on topic.

However, you are wrong.
Apfftchpfftchbtpfftbttuuthhpuuwhat.

Okay.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 03:00 AM   #80
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
*reads unownmew's post in deoxys' post*

Well, debate over then I guess. Wonder why we had it in the first place if it's that cut and dried, huh?
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 03:03 AM   #81
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
To be fair there is a little more to his post than that, but it is a summation of all of his opinions on the matter thus far culminating in "There is great evidence in the favor of man-made Global Warming being an elaborate fraud".
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 12:25 PM   #82
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
I appreciate the defense deoxys, especially since I can no longer give it myself to Muyotwo

I summarized because all my previous posts were the meat of the issue, and it seems my points are simply ignored in favor of the "Consensus," not even given the opportunity to be examined for plausibility.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 02:19 PM   #83
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Because you're not a scientist, mew. No one writes off the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and yet 98% of scientists agree that man HAS had an influence on the atmosphere. Why do you deny something that scholars and those who have studied everyday for years and years? Such thinking is ignorant and dangerous. This isn't a debated statistic either.

Oh wait, I forgot, this must be a liberal agenda of some sort to get the government to run our lives even more. Because that's the obvious answer to everything you don't want to believe.
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter




Last edited by deoxys; 01-27-2012 at 02:22 PM.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 04:00 PM   #84
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Because you're not a scientist, mew. No one writes off the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and yet 98% of scientists agree that man HAS had an influence on the atmosphere. Why do you deny something that scholars and those who have studied everyday for years and years? Such thinking is ignorant and dangerous. This isn't a debated statistic either.
You're not a scientist either you know. In the end, all we can do is link back to claims from people who already have done the work, and determine which is the most plausible, and trustworthy.

I'm not denying that humanity can assert a direct and lasting influence on the weather, particularly in the event of a widespread nuclear disaster/war. The difference here though, is the weather is related to cloud cover, and could just as easily occur with the same devastation through natural causes (such as volcanic eruptions or asteroid collision).

Nor am I denying that Carbon Dioxide is related in some manner with temperature. The difference here is, just because they are related, and are proven to correlate, such correlation does not necessitate that CO2 causes temperature changes, and I've yet to see any conclusive evidence proving one way or another. Furthermore I believe the "impact" Humanity has on any rising CO2 trends is quite miniscule when you look at the big picture.


BTW, if your statistic is so undebatable, why leave out your source?




Quote:
Oh wait, I forgot, this must be a liberal agenda of some sort to get the government to run our lives even more. Because that's the obvious answer to everything you don't want to believe.
When you live in a world where Hitler, Putin, Castro, Stalin, and Osama Bin Laden, among other tyrannical leaders throughout the ages, can rise to power and then control vast portions of people's lives, or otherwise tyrannize them, you tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to laws and other policies that stick their hands in people's personal business.

Of course, for people who don't live in such a world, it's easy to understand their blind faith in government intervention.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 04:57 PM   #85
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Because I'm tired of citing my sources with you and you just writing them off. Not to mention I can honestly say I only vaguely remember the statistic and I think that was it, I don't remember. You can Google it just as easily as I can (in b4 you Google it and find a site with the opposite results)

Debating with you is starting to become no different from a dog chasing it's own tail. You're quite honestly the most stubborn conservative I've ever debated with, and I know a LOT of conservatives. I mean maybe if there was ever any common ground with you but you almost always have to disagree. I feel like I could tell you that the sky is blue and you'd retort with "it's actually aquamarine. You're just buying into the liberal propaganda the EPA wants you to believe."

I mean maybe if you were more open minded (which are the best kind of debates. When I lose and know it I concede, especially when I learn something new out of it), but you aren't. Honestly I'm surprised you haven't called me or Talon a pinhead yet, so there's that.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 05:11 PM   #86
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Personally, I think humans contribute to it, but only in a minute amount. The Earth goes through climate change naturally. While humans do have some "say" in it, it's not all us.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 06:21 PM   #87
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Because I'm tired of citing my sources with you and you just writing them off.
I also, am rather tired of that happening to me, not necessarily you, but in general.

Quote:
Debating with you is starting to become no different from a dog chasing it's own tail. You're quite honestly the most stubborn conservative I've ever debated with, and I know a LOT of conservatives. I mean maybe if there was ever any common ground with you but you almost always have to disagree. I feel like I could tell you that the sky is blue and you'd retort with "it's actually aquamarine. You're just buying into the liberal propaganda the EPA wants you to believe."
I am rather literal and stubborn, I'll admit that. To be honest, depending on my mood, I do actually correct tiny inconsistencies like that. I don't always refer to the inconsistency being being a result of liberal social engineering though.


Quote:
I mean maybe if you were more open minded (which are the best kind of debates. When I lose and know it I concede, especially when I learn something new out of it), but you aren't. Honestly I'm surprised you haven't called me or Talon a pinhead yet, so there's that.
I'm up for finding common ground with you, or anyone. It's not that I'm not open-minded, I just adhere to my beliefs until I am soundly refuted. I'll consider ideas, but unless there's more and much stronger proof one way or the other, I'm going to stick with what I currently know to be truth.

I try to be mostly civil in my debates, though I may get heated at times, getting into personal attacks only means you've lost and have no more evidence on your side, so I don't do that.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 09:42 AM   #88
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
I'm sure you've heard of Pascal's Wager, unownmew. Now while it's full of logical fallacies with religion, it works surprisingly well with Global Warming. If Global Warming does exist, then we're doing our best to stop it. If it doesn't, we're going to have a cleaner, greener, more efficient world anyway!
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 02:28 PM   #89
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
I'm sure you've heard of Pascal's Wager, unownmew. Now while it's full of logical fallacies with religion, it works surprisingly well with Global Warming. If Global Warming does exist, then we're doing our best to stop it. If it doesn't, we're going to have a cleaner, greener, more efficient world anyway!
And I have absolutely no problem with that. I want a clean, green, efficient world, with alternative energy sources too. And I want people to be actively doing things about what they believe in.

What my problem with Global Warming, is, it's being used as an excuse for Governments to infringe on individual liberties, mess with the economic system, and intervene in the private sector to pick winners and losers based on politics and campaign contributions instead of merit.

If you believe in Global Warming, go on and do things yourself to change society's perceptions and make a difference.
But leave government out of it completely, everyone has the right to make their own choice as to whether to participate in "Saving the world," or not, they shouldn't be mandated by government either way.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2012, 03:15 PM   #90
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
everyone has the right to make their own choice as to whether to participate in "Saving the world," or not, they shouldn't be mandated by government either way.
You have the right to be left alone so long as your actions don't have any negative impact on others. The moment your actions do have a negative impact on others, that's usually where government's domain begins and your right to do however you please ends. For example ...
  • We're on an ice floe at sea and the chunk of ice we're standing on is starting to crack. Our only hope for rescue is an airlift out of here -- the moment the ice breaks up and we plunge into the water, we're all doomed. There are ten of us on this block of ice. One of the leaders of our party says, "Everybody, quit walking around! I need everyone to lie down. When you walk around, you place too much pressure on the ice! When you lie down, your weight is distributed over a much greater area -- and so less pressure, and so less likely to damage the ice!" Nine of us do as he says. But you decide you want to keep walking around. Your reasoning? "I'm looking out for me. I need to keep warm. If I lie down on that cold ice, I'm going to freeze to death. I need to keep walking." Do we ...
    1. respect your freedom of domain? or do we
    2. kick your ass off of the ice floe before you get us all killed?
  • similar example with us being ten guys in a military squad and you're the only one who insists on having a smoke, despite the squad leader warning everybody that smoking will give away our position to the enemy
  • similar example with us in a snowed-in log cabin with only enough food to last us for one week if we ration it but we find that you've already gone ahead and eaten your entire allotted share in just one day
In a matter of life and death, you don't have the right to get us all killed. Our right to survive trumps your right to be a dick. It's the same thing with global warming. You keep saying, "Government doesn't have the right to tell me how to save the planet. I'll go about saving the planet in my own way." Sorry, but no. That won't cut it. We cannot sit idly by and allow you to keep destroying the environment because you stubbornly refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that your actions are going to get us all killed.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012, 01:31 PM   #91
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
We cannot sit idly by and allow you to keep destroying the environment because you stubbornly refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that your actions are going to get us all killed.
The problem, is, it's not overwhelming evidence, and all "conclusive" research pointing your way, is funded by government, reviewed by government, and edited by government, further reducing it's credibility. Three times Government puts it's hands into shaping the "evidence," you're using to support your claims before any of it is even released to the public.

In this debate, any appeal to claims made by the IPCC, as an authority, is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, your example is much to simple for the complex problem of Global Warming, a better example, taking from your ice floe example:

We're all stuck on an ice floe, and are radioing for help. We make contact with an unknown entity which tells us they're a scientific body with satellite visual of our position. They then tells us that according to their observations, our ice flow is cracking, and the best procedure to prevent it from furthering, is to lay down on the ice.

Some of us who are trapped, panic, and demand everyone lay down right now or we'll all die.
The more level-headed among us (those who didn't immediately panic) argue, after close examination of the surface of the floe, that there is no evidence to suggest any cracking at this time. And furthermore remind us that 3/4 or so of the floe is actually underwater, and if any cracking were to start, it would occur first at the edges, so we'd know when, if it really started cracking.

The levelheaded then radio back telling them there is no evidence yet of cracking, but the scientific entity asserts otherwise, and then says they will start extracting fees from the bank accounts of those who do not comply with their recommendation, to give to any survivors who did. They then call on the panicked and tell them they have the authority to enforce the recommendation by force to the non-compliant.

So, what is wrong with this picture? That's what's wrong with the Global Warming Debate.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012, 03:13 PM   #92
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
To use your perversion of my ice floe example, I would point out this:
  • we have noticed peripheral cracking already
    • net yearly temperature has been on a slim but steady incline
    • the pH of the ocean has been decreasing
  • what you fail to realize is that the cracks will not proceed 5|5|5|5|5|5|5|5|5 like that, but rather 2|2|2|4|8|16|32|64|128 (atmosphere) or 2|2|2|2|64|128|128|128|128 (oceans). There will be a period of apparently "marginal change" and then, drastically, we begin to see rapid changes. This is because of how the chemistry of buffer systems, like our oceans, work; and because of how the chemistry of catalytic chain reactions work, like those found in our atmosphere.
Also, you are factually WRONG when you claim that the government had its hand in all of the global warming research. Scientists have been warning us about global warming in the context of the current debate ("is global warming real and if so is it man-made or man-influenced?") since the 1950s, and have been discussing it since the 19th century in other contexts. But I'll repeat: 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, you had scientists talking about man-made global warming and zero government involvement. The first congressional hearings about global warming didn't take place in this country until the late 1980s. And government didn't really do much to investigate it or proclaim it as true or bunk until the Clinton years in the 1990s. Saying "government has had its hand in this debate since the beginning" is, therefore, disingenuous of you.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012, 04:48 PM   #93
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Personally, I think humans contribute to it, but only in a minute amount. The Earth goes through climate change naturally. While humans do have some "say" in it, it's not all us.
This is essentially how I perceive it as well, but I think it's a more than a minute amount. It's been proven that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods naturally, and we're currently in one right now. But, we also happen to be pumping a shit load of bad things into the atmosphere, which is not only speeding the natural process up, but also is making it warmer than usual.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2012, 08:59 PM   #94
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
To use your perversion of my ice floe example, I would point out this:
  • we have noticed peripheral cracking already
    • net yearly temperature has been on a slim but steady incline
    • the pH of the ocean has been decreasing
I say again, "correlation does not mean causation"
Unless you or another scientist can show me that the cause of the PH of the ocean and the yearly temperature is actually a direct result (and not just something that seems to be raising at the same time), of humans burning CO2, you have no leg to stand on.
Prove the causation, and then you'll start getting me to convert.


Quote:
  • what you fail to realize is that the cracks will not proceed 5|5|5|5|5|5|5|5|5 like that, but rather 2|2|2|4|8|16|32|64|128 (atmosphere) or 2|2|2|2|64|128|128|128|128 (oceans). There will be a period of apparently "marginal change" and then, drastically, we begin to see rapid changes. This is because of how the chemistry of buffer systems, like our oceans, work; and because of how the chemistry of catalytic chain reactions work, like those found in our atmosphere.
I'm not denying that if cracks will happen, it will occur slowly, and then increase rapidly. Personally, I don't believe any cracks will occur, and even if they do, I have no reason to believe it will be a catastrophe, as we're so often told.

Quote:
Also, you are factually WRONG when you claim that the government had its hand in all of the global warming research. Scientists have been warning us about global warming in the context of the current debate ("is global warming real and if so is it man-made or man-influenced?") since the 1950s, and have been discussing it since the 19th century in other contexts. But I'll repeat: 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, you had scientists talking about man-made global warming and zero government involvement. The first congressional hearings about global warming didn't take place in this country until the late 1980s. And government didn't really do much to investigate it or proclaim it as true or bunk until the Clinton years in the 1990s. Saying "government has had its hand in this debate since the beginning" is, therefore, disingenuous of you.
You are right, some research was done much earlier, with poorer instruments and less data. I read about it in one of the sites you linked me. Interestingly enough, the claims for global warming from back then died out quickly after that, with the advent of the 'little ice age.'


However, the "claim" for an actual Global Warming Catastrophe, only started with the publishing of Mann et al and their Fraudulent Hockey Stick Graph. It was ONLY THEN, that it became something worth any serious study at all. From then, many people have taken the issue, and made profit from it by increasing hype and releasing misinformation (Al Gore). And yet, even with the proving of the hockey stick graph as a total fraud, the sole reason man-made global warming was considered a serious threat, we're told we still need to look into the issue... Huh?

During this time, the UN formed the IPCC, and any and all conclusive evidence regarding Man-made global warming and how it "truly exists!" since the Hockey Stick Graph, has stemmed from them and them alone. Conclusions drawn with scientific research, and then reviewed and modified to suit the agenda of the financier, Government.

Each and every proponent has a vested interest in Man-made Global Warming being a truth. They've staked their lives and reputation on it, and Damn it if they'll fall from grace if the whole thing turns up hoax, they'll do whatever they can to keep the hoax alive, and their reputations and federal funding grants intact.

Government has a vested interest in keeping Global Warming as a "serious threat," because it gives them much greater leverage at stealing precious liberties, staying in power, and increasing tax dollars. They've also placed their reputations on the line (politicians) and you know damn well what would happen to them if it came out they were perpetrating and facilitating fraud. That's why they can never let a contrary viewpoint stand, there is too much at stake for them: their power, and their money.

And this is why we are having this discussion.


Furthermore, even if man-made global warming Does exist, and really will be a catastrophe in the future, which I have no reason to believe will be the case, but just to suppose:
The correct response is not Governments increasing their power and taxation, nor for them to severely break their contractual bounds and inhibit or otherwise completely take away personal liberties. It is for government to encourage and promote (but not directly fund!) the sciences to find solutions that will allow humanity to prosper in this "post catastrophic" state. For instance, space colonization. Not only does it solve the problem, but it doesn't infringe liberty, and makes everyone wealthier with the increase of [private sector] jobs and better technology.

The planet will be fine whatever we do to it (short of ramming another planet into it), the main problem to be fixed would be humanity's continued existence.

Last edited by unownmew; 01-29-2012 at 09:11 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 07:46 PM   #95
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Could've sworn we had a global warming thread. Didn't remember it being from the unownmew era of the Debate forum. ^^; orz

A friend shared this New York Times article with me. Choice quotes:

Quote:
Scientists say emissions must peak within the next few years, and then begin to decline, if the world is to have any hope of keeping global warming to an upper limit that countries agreed on five years ago. So far, no plans are in place that would come close to achieving that.
Quote:
The nations of the world have agreed to try to limit the warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, which would require that emissions slow down and then largely stop in the next 30 years or so. If they continue on their present course through the century, scientists say, the earth could warm by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit above the preindustrial level, which would likely be incompatible with human civilization in its current form.
So if you live somewhere where the summer tends to be mostly 80s and a few 90s (°F), what they're saying is that you should expect it to become 90s and a few 100s by the year 2100. Seems like a vicious cycle in the making given that modern civilization's answer to such high temperatures is to blast the AC that much harder.

Quote:
Emissions have been falling gradually in recent years in most of the developed countries, in part because of economic weakness but also because of strengthening climate policies. Emissions in the 28-nation European Union fell 1.8 percent in 2013, despite increases in coal consumption in a few countries, including Germany and Poland. Emissions decreased sharply in Britain, Italy and Spain.
The reason for sharing this paragraph is that final sentence. Go Brits!
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 07:51 PM   #96
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Personally, I think humans contribute to it, but only in a minute amount. The Earth goes through climate change naturally. While humans do have some "say" in it, it's not all us.
My Lord it's hard to believe how much I've changed my stance on this issue in two and a half years.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 07:56 PM   #97
KamenAeons
ROASTY ROASTY
 
KamenAeons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: THE WORLD OF HOT POT
Posts: 2,791
It's sad to believe that in Australia, we're capable of cutting emissions, but big business lies in the mining industry and such leverage from the higher powers forces us to back-pedal towards an unsustainable future rife with more warming. >_>;

I honestly didn't know we had this thread.
KamenAeons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 07:57 PM   #98
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I don't want to read this thread.

*clicks "first"*

NO
NO I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS

*hits control+F*

*actually reasonable neutral position*

ty jesus
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 08:05 PM   #99
PikaGod
Marsh Badge
 
PikaGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by KamenAeons View Post
It's sad to believe that in Australia, we're capable of cutting emissions, but big business lies in the mining industry and such leverage from the higher powers forces us to back-pedal towards an unsustainable future rife with more warming. >_>;

I honestly didn't know we had this thread.
But you get save less than $10 dollars on your electricity bills!
__________________
Fizzy Bubbles: Karmas
PikaGod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 09:20 PM   #100
Heather
Naga's Voice
 
Heather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
My word, I lost far too many brain cells from reading unownmew's posts. Thank goodness we don't have to deal with an arch-conservative conspiracy theorist like him anymore.

Anyway, while global warming is indeed a natural process (the earth goes between Ice age and warmer ages, essentially, just on very large timescales), man made emissions and such, left unchecked, could throw off that balance and make Ice ages warmer and times like these blazing.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheFishGuy View Post
Quoth the Honchkrow (nevermore!).
Fizzy Member Post: Catherine Park
Heather is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.