Whitehouse.gov Petition

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Olaf_C, Apr 12, 2015.

  1. Agreed on that part. 2 ice ages and loads of other changes.
  2. It bugs me so much when people say something like "Oh, it's snowing. There goes the global warming theory." There is a huge lack of education about this subject mostly because people in general choose to ignore it. If the effects were happening in present day, people would be more apt to do something about it. We are leaving a terrible place for our future generations.
  3. I just kind of laugh when people do that. It's like taking a hamburger and saying "there's no world hunger, because I have this hamburger, and am not hungry", that's just not a valid argument. And even besides that, this isn't a particularly hot summer that we're talking about here. Like you said, the real effects of this won't be felt until hundreds, possibly thousands of years from now, but that doesn't make the problem any less real.

    The way I look at it, global warming laws can only do good. On one hand, you help prevent a disaster of epic proportions, yay! On the other hand, even if it isn't real, you still have helped make Earth a cleaner place, yay! It's a win-win situation. And if "global warming" is the term we use among many to justify these changes, so be it.
    georgeashington likes this.
  4. While I'm not certain, I think this would be allowed, as it's Federal-level.
    boozle628 likes this.
  5. It is legal within the federal level, but the fact that it can be outlawed in states is disgusting.
  6. I personally don't believe in "Global Warming". If anything Maine was colder and it snowed more this year :p
    BrenJone and nfell2009 like this.
  7. I can't believe people are still on this global warming trend.... is 1880, the stations in the US and Europe covered 10% of the earths surface TEN PERCENT. I'll let you google it. I'd also like to note that over 70% of the earth (mostly because it's the ocean) is and has not, BEEN TRACKED AT ALL. We don't even have all the land covered yet, let alone everything else. On top of that it's being compared to the very very VERY small amount of data collected 100 years ago (don't even think about any data collected before that). The "data" that we are seeing today is simply from random models and programs based on this very small collection of data. You can make a model to give just about ANY outcome that you want.

    With that being said, I think it's wrong to ban talking about something. Even if that something is wrong and an outright LIE, I think it's someones right to look like an idiot if they want to.
    nfell2009 and Bro_im_infinite like this.
  8. The 10% fact is actually irrelevant due to the fact that we have satellite data, and we can measure levels of gas in ice. For example, in the 60's when leaded gas was huge, there was a fight against it due to the same reasons global warming is being "disproved". It was argued that the amount of lead in the atmosphere was normal, but it in fact was not. Looking at polar ice caps over decades, we have seen that for thousands of years rates change steadily, until lead was introduced. Now, CO2 levels are rising and GLOBAL temperature data is pointing towards climate change. I respect your opinion, but the matter needs to be investigated more for both sides to come to a conclusion.
  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

    It is perhaps the most painful thing in american politics, that the party that promotes itself as the "patriotic" and "historic" has very little grasp on what the country was founded on. It's just counter productive in every way possible. I'm just speculating here, and this has so solid proof, but I feel the ban on the provocatively sinful phrases, like "Global Warming" or "Climate Change", is a sign of weakness by the people who want censorship of actual fricking progress. My theory is they know they are wrong, so they are banning the use of the phrase to make it look bad. "oh that politician said "global warming", what heresy", and distract us from the real problem.. To an extent it is working, we are spending our time trying to get back our first frickin first amendment rights while we could be having a discussion about how to tackle the problem. It's pathetic the state we are in as a nation, honestly.
    georgeashington and Olaf_C like this.
  10. First: I'm also very skeptical when it comes to global warming. Although I do believe that the climate can change and that things are changing I do not believe that the human population is as much involved as some people claim. Because of a few small issues... First of all the simple fact of weather history; it doesn't go back as much as some people want to make us believe. In fact, there are also a lot of cases where the actual recorded history disputes some critical comments regarding certain changes. For me those are local examples, obviously, but comments as "it was never so warm this time of year". Then you check the almanac and, wowsers; around 1890 - 1910 the same kind of events occurred. Before the massive industrial revolution.

    The other thing which bothers me is that, in my impression for sure, many people seem to think that nature lacks any kind of ability to adapt. Yet it does, and can. I think too many people think that nature as a whole is a weak, fragile, entity which one can harm with the snap of your fingers. Well, I don't believe that. Nature, seen as an entity (even though it isn't, but hopefully you get my drift), can actually be quite lethal and is well capable of adapting and healing itself. And worse. To a certain degree of course, but even so... Take the oil spills. Many people don't realize, or don't have any clue, that a lot of the oil eventually gets broken down by bacteria itself. They only see beaches with oil residue which makes them believe its a crisis which only us humans can fix. Not quite... Nature can handle it just fine as well, but it does take a lot more time.

    And that's not even discussing the constant fluctuation of the magnetic field of the Earth which also causes a lot of issues. Some experts even came up with theories that it might be possible for the north and southern axes to change places some day, which will also have its impact on nature and, possibly, the climate itself. There is also proof this happened on other planets as well.

    Major impact happening yet not exactly something us humans can manage.

    So yeah, I am a skeptic where climate change is concerned.

    But guys... Nice discussion we're having but as Olaf said himself: this isn't about climate change at all. I don't care if you believe or don't believe in the theories of climate change; bottom line is that everyone is entitled to his opinion and should be allowed to express that opinion. With that in mind it's kind of bizarre that the politicians would try to ban this.

    I'm definitely not in favor of those kinds of regulations. Even if you are a major skeptic like I am, even if you might be in favor of these bans you still got to ask yourself this: what happens next time when the politicians don't like a particular subject?

    Lets throw some oil on the fire, as is the saying: gun control. I know its a hot issue in the US, it doesn't exist over here, but let me give this a try...

    So finally the government sees that its not just people killing people, its also guns which make it a lot easier for them. Ergo; you need a change in the constitution which outlaws people from owning guns. And I know it'd be a massive outrage which leads to many debates, discussions and arguments. Just look at the weapons industry and what they can do.

    But not to worry; the government knows whats best for us and therefore will simply ban the right to talk about firearms during political debates. After all; firearm talks dates from the times of Jesse James and has no place in a modern, civilized, country. right?

    Think I'm going crazy? Not really. THIS is what you could be looking at if you don't step up right now and demand your freedom of speech.

    It could be gun control, it could be drugs, it could be other difficult subjects. But the bottom line isn't climate change; the bottom line is a government which is now starting to act like a plain out dictator; telling you what you can or cannot say. What you can or cannot argue.

    If talk about climate change is inappropriate at times then there are chairmen or people who lead the debates which can cancel it out. But only if needed. The last thing you want is a ban of the topic up front. Because, as hinted above: what's next?
    Gawadrolt, BrenJone and Olaf_C like this.
  11. Tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores and geological makeup, etc, there are multitudes of different things that one can look at to understand climate change and history. It is most certainly not based on just 100 years data, it is based on thousands of years of data.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/flash-video?vid=ozone_1960-2100&title=Ozone Decline and Recovery
    The above presentation of data is recent, and that data is related to the explosion of the use of CFCs in things such as hairsprays and refrigeration/AC fluids. That layer that you see depleting/disappearing is the ozone layer, the layer that blocks much or the extremely harmful UV radiation from hitting the surface. Without that layer, there is no denying that our planet would be hotter purely form an increase in radiation.

    But an understanding of the greenhouse effect is essential to understanding climate change. It is not based on history, it is based on scientific facts. A small summary is that our atmosphere is made up of many different gases. The sun emits energy in a shortwave form, often slipping through the atmosphere with ease. When the earth absorbs a percentage of that radiation, it re-emits that radiation in longwave form. While the sun's shortwave radiation can slip through the atmosphere with relative ease, the longwave radiation cannot escape as easily. The longwave radiation gets trapped by the atmosphere, which then re-emits it back to both the earth and space, resulting in a reheating of the earth.

    In general, this is a fine system that keeps us at a temperature suitable for life. But, the big issue surrounding climate change is that the gases/particulates we are pumping into our atmosphere are the ones that absorb longwave radiation. This means that more and more heat is being trapped by our atmosphere, and thus our planet will warm.

    ev2.PNG
    ev1.PNG

    CO2 is in red, water vapor is in blue. Notice how the bulk of energy absorption for CO2 is at the same wavelengths that the earth emits? The more CO2 (and CO2 isn't the only issue gas) we pump into the atmosphere, the more heat/radiation capacity our atmosphere gains. This leads to climate change, and it is not instantaneous.

    Historical data, whether (puns) it be from direct human measurements or ice cores, is generally used to back up the science behind climate change, not as the main evidence that climate change is occurring.

    /rant
    //not meant to be in depth, so if you are a climate scientist, have pity on me
  12. I agree that Climate Change must be debated
  13. Pab10S, nfell2009 and Bro_im_infinite like this.
  14. I was just about to say that
  15. "What is an ocean, but a multitude of drops?" -some character in a book I read sometime
    L0tad and jkjkjk182 like this.
  16. I'm not sure the context of what you are saying, but it reminded me of something.

    I used to be a big fan of corn/sugar cane based ethanol. I was talking with my best at her house about it once and her mom overheard the conversation and went one two hour rant about how ethanol is going to shift the impact to the destruction of the remaining topsoil and deviation to the food markets. I did some research, and long story short, algae is the way to go :) (but that brings a new set of problems to the table)

    What makes this relevant you ask? Debate. If we and our politicians can't have a open and public debate not one if there is climate change, but how to tackle it, what are our options, how do we innovate? I was under the impression that America was a "playground of ideas" of sorts, anyone can present their idea, and it would be talked about. Some would catch one, other would die out. Perhaps its just my lack of experience, but when did banning talking about a controversial subject help either side?

    On second thought, they can't deny it either :p
    Gawadrolt likes this.
  17. Banning the topic does help the gop since it stops awareness. Not to compare the us to a dictatorship, but this is a tactic used in surpressive countries.
  18. It was more of a joke that a serious coment :p
  19. I find the United States of America an astonishing place.

    The best way to ensure security? GUNS FOR EVERYONE!
    What to do with the money? DROP TAXES ON THE RICH, STARVE THE POOR!
    Universal healthcare? NONE OF THAT, MUH TAXES
    Rehabilitation? LOL WAT, JUST THROW THEM OUT ON THE STREETS WITH NOTHING, WHY WOULD THEY REOFFEND BRO?
    Vaccinations? AUTISM As someone living with autism that really pisses me off.
    Best way to show people murder is wrong? DEATH PENALTY!
    Protecting the environment? BILLIONS IN OIL SUBSIDIES! LET'S STARVE A GROWING SOLAR INDUSTRY!
    Education? STANDARDISED TESTING!
    Global warming? SCREW THE EVIDENCE, IT'S A LIBTARD FEAR-MONGERING MYTH
    Terror attack kills 3,000 people? LET'S GO TO A BUNCH OF COUNTRIES WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AND KILL A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE, THAT'LL SHOW 'EM
    Privacy? LOL NOPE, COLLECT ALL THE DATA
    Fair democracy? HERE'S TWO EVILS, CHOOSE THE LESSER

    Seriously, wtf. And this is the most powerful country on the planet?

    I truly despair.
    kitten3101, L0tad, Gawadrolt and 3 others like this.