Connecting Singles^® Polls 100% Free Online Dating

Nah i dont think so, i recon it's nature, a natural cycle.

Blame the space program, NASA and the like, their the ones who are shooting things up in space, if we fry we should blame them lol

Im gonna say yes it is our fault,We humans have used our planet as a garbage dump,raping it of its resorses ,pumping megatons of shit into our atmosphere & yet we sit back & say ah well let tommorrow take care of it .
Stupid stupid stupid
Our planet is a living thing ,like all living things it can & will get sick when pumped full of polluting gases & emmissions .
It is without a doubt ...obvious!
For those of us that do everything we can to reduce recycle conserve hats off to you all !Even tho it may seem to little to late !
I think this beautiful planet we all call home is ultimatley worth it !

JMO
Kizzy

I will say that we have CONTRIBITED to Global warming however efforts to stop global warming will be as feeble as trying to stop the tide from coming in.

JMO

When we keep having things like Politicians and Baked beans of course we are going to have Global warming.

Everyone blames the poor defenceless animals yet the human population exceeds the animal population by millions. And we give of the same gases.

How about thinning our numbers first.

Lets start with countries beginning with "A" and work through to "Z". After each thinning we'll wait 6 months and see if things improve.

I'm actually a bit surprised to see that so many people would hang global warming on a bunch of sheep.

Bearing in mind that there are more New Zealanders in Australia than in New Zealand, do you still want to start with the letter A?

Yep if they had enough brains to move to Aussie they must be a threat to the environment.

My view on this topic is that it is a natural Earth cycle. The history of our planet is one of Ice Ages and Interglacials. Earth has heated up and cooled down for millions of years all by itself. The last Ice Age didn't end because people were burning carbon, it ended because it had reached that point in its cycle. The planet warmed, for reasons still unknown to scientists, and is continuing to do so. It will undoubtedly reach a point where the heating cycle ends and cooling begins, as it has done many times before.

As for the notion that burning carbon is driving global warming, you only have to look carefully at article headlines like "World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report" to realise that earth has experienced this level of carbon dioxide before. It was at this level 650,000 years ago, well before people were driving SUV's.

Considering that the forces which drive the planets climate are poorly understood, I think it's a bit premature to be pointing the finger at human activity. Of course, not many scientists would be prepared to put their research grants in jeopardy by agreeing with me.

I'll debate this with you bourbon.

Who understood Carbon Dioxide 650,000 yrs ago. Its only been 2000 yrs since christ was supposedly walking around. And we're still struggling to prove or disprove this. And according to some postings on this site anything before this time was mythology.

Yes Science has enough signs to say its fact that the Magnetic cycle of the earth has switched rotations. And many believe that it is these magnetic switches in rotation that have caused these extremes in climate.

But that doesn't explain the hole in the Ozone. The ozone hole is man made. And Science can measure its growth and retraction. We know from history especially the industrial revolution of the 1800s that saw pollution sky rocket in and around the major cities of the world. We (The then population) experienced the consequences of that pollution. As new deseases exploded on to the scene. Death rates were high and life expectancy low.

Then (Don't ask me when, where or who) the cities started cleaning themselves up. Factories started to mind there waste. Found alternative methods to dispose and or treat their waste. AS this happened the rivers and air improved. Life expectancy improved. In recent history locally. Christchurch banned certain forms of Household heating. It's Atmospheric pollution improved because of that stance. That was during the 1960s or 1970s.

Also by taking on the stance of cleaning up our environment NOW. We are going to take advantage of technology that is already developed to the experimental stage but placed on the back burner due to our oil based economy. I mean we have proved time and again over the last two centuries of what man can do when it abuses and then aids its environment. We know our environment is changing and dieing. Lets get in now and improve it. Australia has a water problem. New Zealand is starting to see water issues. Why not have cars that create water as a waste by product. Surely this step alone will improve the ozone, Improve breathing atmosphere, and improve water purity. In those areas of acid rain. Even that event will become a myth.
Cleaning up our atmosphere will decrease all breathing ailments. Think what life for someone who suffers from hay fever or an asthmatic would be like with a cleaner greener atmosphere.

Sure you can argue that this was going to happen at anyrate. Eventually.
But how fast has man sped up the cycle 5yrs,10yrs, 100yrs, 2000yrs, 1,000,000 yrs. We don't know. But we do know we are a major contributor to the shit we are in.

Very good Andrew....

Humans yes

Industrial revolution was the beging is my view.
18th century materialism.

I believe we do live in our own environmental garbage dumps, and many peoples medical ailments and deaths prove that.
In my view Dragondog is 100% right, now is the time to make the changes permanently, but who knows if it is to late or not?
I live on the seaside of a major chemical manufacturing company so mainly get the fresh sea breeze air but once I walk down the road a few blocks and stand behind that factory where many people live I know in myself the air makes me feel physically ill, its a crime. We don't need all these chemicals lining the surfaces of our homes when something like vinegar and baking soda do the same jobs, its amazing what a bit of marketing will do, maybe I'm off the beaten track - but in my view it all contributes.

My point is that Carbon Dioxide has previously been at today's level in the Earth's atmosphere and the world survived, just as we survive today.

Yes, there is a Magnetic Cycle with Magnetic Pole reversals. Scientists also know that there is a weakening of the magnetic field before each reversal. The Earth's magnetic field is currently weakening, which could be a signal of an impending reversal. This would still occur regardless of the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.



Here you are linking chemical pollution to ozone depletion, and rightly so. The main ozone depleting chemicals are CFC's or Chlorofluorocarbons. Other ozone depleting chemicals include HCFC's Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, Halons, Methyl Bromide, Carbon Tetrachloride, and Methyl Chloroform. Carbon Dioxide is NOT an ozone depleting chemical.



Again, you are talking about chemical pollution. There are thousands of nasty chemicals produced and used by industry. A lot of these chemical pollutants do affect the health and well being of people globally. I don't dispute this, but these chemicals are not being blamed for global warming. It is the Carbon Dioxide which is being blamed.

Every person on the planet exhales Carbon Dioxide, as does every other living animal. It only becomes toxic in high doses, much higher than the current environmental levels. There is no adverse health effects from the current levels of Carbon Dioxide.




The cars you are referring to are driven by Hydrogen. They do not create any water. Initially, water has to be split to produce Hydrogen and then by burning the Hydrogen in the car, you return it to the state of water. There is no net water gain.

Still, having cleaner cars on the road would have to be a good thing.

Gaia's way of "heating up" the place to make us sit up and start paying attention to what's going on - and going down !

I have neither the inclination nor the time to go researching facts and figures.

And you seem to have agreed with whats said. Not bad for stuff i just gleen from here and there and store away somewhere in the depths of my brain.

And your response gives credence to other remarks you've made about your background through the forums.

So one would be an idiot to continue debating something they aren't prepared to research.

<----- Enter the idiot.

But i can't get my head around the carbon dioxide. I am uncertain of where your coming from.

Yes The earth cannot keep up with the Carbon Dioxide levels. The reasons are a given. Mankinds invasion of natures domains. The mass clearances of areas for crops and farming and domestication. We have upset the Harmony and balance of nature that badly it can no longer support us.

Everyone knows that plants take our CO2 and make it breathable oxygen. (Well we are told this by science and accept it as truth) But as we all know The populations keep increasing and the forests keep decreasing.

The current NZ policies say they want to (From here on in) Become one for one. For every tree you cut down. You replace it somewhere with another one. We need the plant world. And its time we made ourselves think very seriously about it and start giving back. A "renewable resource" has been bandied about for nearly a decade now. But to me it seems like its lip service only. Mining and Oil are not renewable resources. Why do we insist on maintaining these two industries.

With relation to the animals though. I thought it was the methane gases that were the problem not the oxides. These Methane gases adding to the Global warming problem and the thinning of the ozones. Hence the new taxes on farmers. If I was a farmer I'd be tempted to say, "Will if you want to tax me then stick your farm, I'll grow grain or rice instead" To the point where meat becomes a real luxury. Something only the elite will ever enjoy.

Yes we needed to tackle this problem 20 or 30 years ago. But now is just as good as never. But the governments need to ensure its done uniformerly than attack particular sectors.
(OK the POLITICS is an aside and off topic)

Yep and wouldn't the road sides be greener and more pleasant to walk.

And not sure whether wrong or right but my assumption was that the waste from the cars would be absorbed back into the ground replenishing the hidden water tables underneath.

One should read properly and then correspond acordingly

Sorry Bourbon. Will endeavour to do better. (Yeah right)

But I really cocked the reponses up.

But remember Bourbon. What was the ratio Of human Population to Natural resources Back then at those levels of CO2.

Why was there so much CO2 back then.

One of the reasons the world recovered was because of the vast amounts of natural resources that were available to bring our CO2 levels down.

Okay where does oil come from....
The big container ........
It is just there?
HOW DID IT GET THERE?..





Taken a good few years to be.......

Big compost........

Where does plastic come from????

We humans just think Turn a tap on water flows.....

Food for thought?

Could there be any benefits to global warming? I know the house I bought 25 km inland will eventually be prime beach waterfront real-estate. A view of the beach might be nice and serene, abeit a bit hot.

Okay, the easiest way to explain it is if you can imagine the world sitting in a sealed container. Nothing gets in and nothing gets out. In this sealed container, the TOTAL amount of carbon on the planet cannot change. What can change is where the carbon is located. Some of the carbon is sitting under the ground, in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. Some of it is in trees and other vegetation, some is in animals and in people, some is in the oceans and the rest is in the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide.

We take the coal, oil and gas out of the ground and burn it. The waste, Carbon Dioxide, is pumped into the atmosphere. There is less carbon in the ground now and more in the atmosphere, but the total amount of carbon remains the same.

We had high levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere in the past because for whatever reason, there was less in the ground and more at the surface of the planet.

Sure, trees do absorb CO2, but so does all vegetation AND, more importantly, so do the oceans. Think about the amount of trees that have been cut down and we still haven't run out of Oxygen. The reason that we aren't choking to death today is because the oceans absorb huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide and release the Oxygen. They are the world's great carbon sink. Plankton and algae consume immense quantities of CO2.

I don't know if you have the same in New Zealand... but in Australia the new catch phrase is "Carbon Sequestration", where they want to clean up coal fired power stations by capturing the carbon emissions and pumping them underground where they will be contained and stored.

Carbon sequestration is also a naturally occuring process, albeit a very slow one, in which all the coal, oil and natural gas reserves were created. It was this process, and not the world's natural resources to human population ratio, that ultimately brought down the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Remember that the amount of Carbon on Earth does not change, only where it is located changes.

Carbon Dioxide is vital in the growth cycle of all vegetation. If anything, having a slighly higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere can only benefit plant life.

The current level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is about 383 parts per million. Apparently the level in 1800 was about 280 parts per million. So as you can see, with all the carbon we have been burning over the last 200 years, we haven't even managed to double the tiny amount that was there without us burning anything. And personally, I fail to see how a roughly 35% increase in such a small component of our atmosphere would have such a dramatic impact on global temperatures. I am far more inclined to believe that the warming is just a natural Earth cycle.



This idea of planting new trees to replace the ones you cut down looks great on paper, but it isn't going to address the real problem caused by deforestation, that of habitat loss. Putting some new trees in the middle of a barren paddock isn't going to replace the eco-system that has been destroyed by cutting down the forest.

A far better policy would be that if you want to cut down a tree, you have to grow it first!

It's a complex world we live in... and sometimes political decisions are made for political reasons, not sensible reasons!