Global Warming

nico · Administrator Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 808

What you are saying is like stating that all of america has voted bush for president 4 years ago.

Greetz Nico

Also, on the idea of calling people biased, how come that every newspaper and scientist that is not conforming to your opinion, and quotes researches that are disagreeing with your view are called biased,whereas papers that quote things that are similar to your ideas are called neutral and objective?

snoopster · Joined: 04 Dec 2004 Posts: 692 Location: nj

nico · Administrator Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 808

One reason you may not see the connection is because your own searches may be biased. A 15 minute search gave me some interesting links:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/21/global-warming-not-so-fast/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/14/wglob14.xml[/img]

And these are articles that at first glance look very seriously to me, and not written by some lunatic.
What I basically am saying is that there are more scientists that doubt the theory of global warming than you may be aware of.
I personally think that both sides are biased, and the truth about global warming, or lack thereoff might be somewhere in the middle. We still need to keep a close eye on our climate becausee it may very well be in danger, but not in a way that you are thinking of.

Greetz Nico

coolcreep · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 264

snoopster · Joined: 04 Dec 2004 Posts: 692 Location: nj

Wikipedia by itself is not a source. However, the Wikipedia page did cite sources for every piece of information it uses, and I checked all of these sources (you can check them too, if you want). Thus, the "wikipedia is not a source" argument does not work.

And nico, I agree with you that human-caused global warming isn't completely proven yet. However, I'm not a climate scientist, and I don't pretend to be one, so I'm going with the huge majority here.

Also, I look at the debate like this:
Two things could happen. Global warming may actually not be caused by humans (which goes against the far majority of scientists), and we may end up fine. Or, global warming could be caused by humans (which is far more probable), and the earth will be doomed. I would rather take measures to ensure that if global warming is real, its effects would be prevented, than to take the chance that it isn't real and risk the world being effectively destroyed.

nico · Administrator Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 808

The main problem I have with arguments concerning global warming is the fact that people get all hysterical about it. Reactions like this cause people to forget about other options when it comes to solutions. They just go with whatever is advertized by the mass media, and don't listen to other voices at all. If you look around on the net, you might find some other solutions and ideas.
I understand the concern and I do understand a lot of the arguments that are made, even though I am not a climatologist. My background is chemistry and physics, so I can say I see the points that are made, and understand them. I just don't necesarily agree with them without giving it a second thought, and checking counterarguments.

Greetz Nico

Koen · Administrator Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 338

I also think it's quite likely humans cause extra global warming. But like nico said, I don't think it's our biggest problem.

It's probably a good plan to reduce emissions by using less gasoline anyway. All this Oil needs to come from regions like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. Giving these dictatorships more money and influence doesn't exactly improve world peace.

The world is running out of easy oil. This is going to have profound effects on our lives. A lot of stuff we get cheap now is going to be a lot more expensive.

Politicians just talking about renewable energy plans doesn't help much. Much more needs to happen.

The Biofuel plan is also a very bad idea. You can already see the impact on food prices. Land now used for biofuel, is not used to produce food. And food prices are already increasing by a lot, due to increased transportation and production costs (more expensive energy).

Just on a sidenote. If any of you has savings, invest in the food or energy sector. Just putting your money on a bank account ain't gonna do much when food and energy prices are skyrocketing. Price increases aren't gonna end anytime soon. The value of the dollars in bank accounts, saving and retirement plans is being drastically reduced by bad government policies. More and more dollars are created by the FED to bail out the banking system. The more dollars they create, the less valuable your dollars will get and the more expensive your daily needs will become.

zagorakis7 · Joined: 21 Jan 2008 Posts: 49

Wow snoopster is an idiot. He checks to see who responds to his post, and then gives some gay argument back. NO LIFE.

XSquad · Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 21

DO NOT invest in oil commodities, I'm telling you thats the next bubble. Eventually there will be enough international pressure on OPEC to increase production and oil exports, which will drive down oil prices and POP! there goes the price of oil commodities. Also, I would say the corn commodity is a long-term bubble. Once governments figure out that biofuels are a waste of money, a corporate scam, and a primary factor in the increase of food prices around the world, demand for ethanol will decrease and the demand for corn crops will decrease as well. The supply of corn at least for the short term after such a change would be high in comparison to the market demand, so corn prices will decrease.

I would personally invest in Costco and/or Walmart stock right now, those stocks are pretty stable and are "safe" options right now. Also, I would invest in the copper commodity. Interestingly enough, Hasbro, the company that owns Wizards of the Coast, has actually been experiencing a boom (in the last 3 months its share price jumped from 17 dollars to 35 dollars). Well thats my two cents, and then some.