Quote:

---

niteowl said:
I was watching this video about the Vampire squid

It is an interesting lil 3 min clip about
an ancient fish living in the deep ocean

At the end the commentator says something about the
need for humans to stop the extinction of species

If evolution is real then isn't extinction part of it
shouldn't some species go extinct if they can't adapt

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
IF certain animals didnt go extinct we wouldnt be here today

---

Why what? Sorry I added more to my post.

--EDIT--

Niteowl origionally asked "Why?" However it seems my post and his have been changed for unknown reasons.

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
It's not necessarily fair to say if an animal can't adapt then it should die, when our actions are what is causing the species to die off. That would be like saying we shouldn't help polar bears in the arctic  because they can't grow fins fast enough to adapt to the heavy melting caused by global warming.

---

At humans causing global warming.

The planet has gone through warm and cold periods WELL before humans came on the scene.
If polar bears survived then and cant now...its time to go extinct

---

If you had done even the slightest bit of research on the topic you would know that the current warming trend is 100% NOT natural. sure in the past there have been wide range temperature fluctuations, but the speed of the current trend is thousands of times faster than anything experienced in the past. additionally, we can say with 100% certainty that CO2, methane and water vapor are extremely potent greenhouse gases so it's a rather logical conclusion that dumping thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have a discernible impact.

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
My POV is no more biased than yours man.

Extinction is a FACT of life no way around that.

If the Vampire squid survived for over 350 million years .....
and cant adapt to the current changes.....its time to go

If a house/factory/town is build and some rare field mouse becomes extinct



Life sux then you die.

Do I think we need to take care of our environment ...

Do I think it is our responsibility to prevent the extinction of random rare species ...

---

My view is not biased at all. I said we must be open to the possibility that it is in fact us - the video specifically said the species was dying due to pollution and changing ocean temperatures. One of those two is definitely our fault. There is no argument there.

Also, I must say, it seems unusual to me for one to dismiss a possible correlation between our consumption of fossil fuels and temperature changes. Mainly because glaciers across the planet have begun to melt at phenomenal rates in the last 50 years - coincidentally, in the last 50 years we have also seen enormous global industrialization, ever increasing fuel consumption and the introduction of mainstream air travel.

Sorry just seems fishy to me.

In addition, like I also said: ecosystems can be extremely delicate, and even miniscule changes can cause butterfly effects throughout an entire ecosystem. These butterfly effects can happen in short term and long term scenarios. We can not let one species die dismissing it as "just one species."

Perhaps its wrong of me to say we have an obligation to prevent extinction, but if anything we should at the very least prolong the death of a species in the name of science. Especially considering the prehistoric qualities of this creature, can give interesting insight for prehistoric marine animal research.

I mean if anything, we should at least preserve a species with the intention of perhaps finding out whether or not it provides some kind of use to humans: for example, the squid may carry an unknown medicine.

Quote:

---

niteowl said:
All the numbers collected in the past 20 years are skewed

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=yd4zSUqGnz

Global warming is nothing more than political B.S.

---

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
How come mars is seeing similar changes?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

---

Quote:

---

Spency said:
Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim?

---

Quote:

---

8 Arguments Against Global Warming
Adapted from The Heartland Institute

Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall.  The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming.  Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."

---

Quote:

---

niteowl said:

Quote:

---

Spency said:
Do you have anything else perhaps a bit more substantial to support you claim?

---

There are tons of evidence against
human based global warming
all you have to do is look for it
just because the 6 o'clock news said its real

doesn't make it so

Quote:

---

8 Arguments Against Global Warming
Adapted from The Heartland Institute

Many claim that global warming is obvious and that all arguments against global warming fall.  The problem is that what is "obvious" often isn't true.

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming.  Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Even The Washington Post stated in 2006, "Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming."

---

link

the evidence is everywhere
if you are willing to look

EPA suppressed evidence against global warming

The simple fact that it is being shoved down my throat makes me suspicious if it.....
just like the swine flu that still hasn't turned in to the pandemic it was supposed to

Their is an underlying agenda
in the Global Warming crowd and
is isn't about saving the planet

---

Quote:

---

Spency said:

Quote:

---

THEBats said:
How come mars is seeing similar changes?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

---

Read that article again. They attribute the temperature changes to dust storms (which get pretty big on Mars.) They say the dust storms are caused by variations in both radiation and temperature. Note, that the variations causing the dust storms could be within the natural fluctuations of the planets environment. However, we don't have dust storms here on Earth, so it is very difficult to suggest that this is not merely coincidence.

---