Loading ...
Every year, there is someone who blames “global warming” as the cause of wretched weather, but truthfully, the world’s weather changes all of the time. Turn on the news, or your blackberry app, and you will see that everyday there is a new forecast that is presented to the public. Sometimes the weather changes more drastically than others. For that matter last winter was the coldest winter on record. Big whoop!
Sure, humans produce carbon dioxide which is polluting the air around us, but the fact is: humans only produce around five percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year. Pointing the other ninety-five percent produced, up to our naturally occurring earth. This makes it hard to believe that humans have caused this bogus theory of “global warming” over the little amount of time we have lived here.
In addition, if we can’t produce carbon dioxide, then why isn’t there a law against breathing? So next time someone blames coal or fossil fuels as the cause of “global warming,” ask them to stop breathing. Show them how they pollute this earth everyday. We are only human, and we can only impact our environment so much.
Polar Bear Pat • Mar 15, 2013 at 8:11 am
I have no home.
Polar Bear Pat • Mar 15, 2013 at 8:11 am
I have no home.
hello • Apr 21, 2011 at 8:53 am
hi
hello • Apr 21, 2011 at 8:53 am
hi
grrr • Apr 21, 2011 at 8:51 am
leave him alone
grrr • Apr 21, 2011 at 8:51 am
leave him alone
John G.L. • Apr 19, 2011 at 8:53 am
May we at least all agree to disagree here?
John G.L. • Apr 19, 2011 at 8:53 am
May we at least all agree to disagree here?
Ben Marks • Apr 14, 2011 at 9:06 am
Xuyi is correct, I was exaggerating. It would have taken 10 seconds, rather than a nanosecond.
Ben Marks • Apr 14, 2011 at 9:06 am
Xuyi is correct, I was exaggerating. It would have taken 10 seconds, rather than a nanosecond.
Jack Burden • Apr 14, 2011 at 9:04 am
i merely referred to global warming because that is what Ausitn was talking about in his article…refer to the first sentence.
Jack Burden • Apr 14, 2011 at 9:04 am
i merely referred to global warming because that is what Ausitn was talking about in his article…refer to the first sentence.
Scuba Steve • Apr 13, 2011 at 8:45 am
You got some haters!!
Scuba Steve • Apr 13, 2011 at 8:45 am
You got some haters!!
Leave Austin Alone • Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22 am
I think some of you should stop talking down to Austin and give him a break since not all of your points are valid anyway.
David is okay.
Jack has global warming confused with climate change. Global warming does necessarily mean heating.
Howard is wrong. Oxygen levels during the Carboniferous period peaked around 35% and there was plenty of life.
Zakary should not have agreed with Howard because he is wrong.
Ben Marks is exaggerating. A nuclear weapon could not destroy 500 square miles in a period of time as short as one nanosecond.
Breton is just being mean. Cold winters do have something to do with the issue – refer to David’s comment. Global warming is a specific form of climate change and it is what current climate change is. Therefore, climate change is not really a better name for global warming.
Anonymous: get out of here.
Astronaut Joe cannot have typed that post himself because he is dead.
Austin Coffey is still wrong though…
Leave Austin Alone • Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22 am
I think some of you should stop talking down to Austin and give him a break since not all of your points are valid anyway.
David is okay.
Jack has global warming confused with climate change. Global warming does necessarily mean heating.
Howard is wrong. Oxygen levels during the Carboniferous period peaked around 35% and there was plenty of life.
Zakary should not have agreed with Howard because he is wrong.
Ben Marks is exaggerating. A nuclear weapon could not destroy 500 square miles in a period of time as short as one nanosecond.
Breton is just being mean. Cold winters do have something to do with the issue – refer to David’s comment. Global warming is a specific form of climate change and it is what current climate change is. Therefore, climate change is not really a better name for global warming.
Anonymous: get out of here.
Astronaut Joe cannot have typed that post himself because he is dead.
Austin Coffey is still wrong though…
Astronaut Joe • Apr 8, 2011 at 10:17 am
Howdy, I’m an astronaut! A portion of glass was missing from my face shield when I went to the moon. It was only 5 % of the whole thing. Tell my splattered, asphyxiated remains that 5 % must be insignificant.
Astronaut Joe • Apr 8, 2011 at 10:17 am
Howdy, I’m an astronaut! A portion of glass was missing from my face shield when I went to the moon. It was only 5 % of the whole thing. Tell my splattered, asphyxiated remains that 5 % must be insignificant.
John G.L. • Apr 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Before this debate continues, let us not confuse the terms of “climate change” and “global warming.” The first refers to the change in global climate patterns and the second refers to the gradual rise in the overall temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere caused by higher levels of the odorless gas carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and other pollutants.
John G.L. • Apr 7, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Before this debate continues, let us not confuse the terms of “climate change” and “global warming.” The first refers to the change in global climate patterns and the second refers to the gradual rise in the overall temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere caused by higher levels of the odorless gas carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and other pollutants.
Informed and educated • Apr 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm
For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.
– Paul Krugman
Informed and educated • Apr 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm
For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.
– Paul Krugman
Anonymous • Apr 6, 2011 at 9:32 am
pwnd
Anonymous • Apr 6, 2011 at 9:32 am
pwnd
Nahla Aboutabl • Apr 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Breton…I really like your comment. Anyway….how is it that humans don’t affect the environment? We do live here, right? We’ve cut down trees, spilled oil, nuked places, caused holes in the atmosphere, used and still use coal as an energy source, and the list goes on and on…
Climates and weather change, but we pollute. That’s a fact.
Nahla Aboutabl • Apr 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Breton…I really like your comment. Anyway….how is it that humans don’t affect the environment? We do live here, right? We’ve cut down trees, spilled oil, nuked places, caused holes in the atmosphere, used and still use coal as an energy source, and the list goes on and on…
Climates and weather change, but we pollute. That’s a fact.
Breton Nicholas • Apr 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Hi Austin, I don’t know who you are or why you wrote this blurb, but I’d like to help you out a little bit by illustrating how obnoxiously uninformed your argument is.
First, you point out that weather on earth never stops changing. I’m really glad you brought this up, because I don’t think anyone ever realized this before. I mean the weather CHANGES?? Who Knew?!
Second, at the end of your first paragraph, you don’t do a good job of explaining to the reader what a cold winter really means. Let me tell you: A cold winter has nothing to do with the issue. You might argue that two years ago we had a huge amount of snow, and therefore, it’s not getting warmer. Well actually, a warmer climate puts more moisture into the atmosphere, which would come to us in the form of snow in the winter.
Thirdly, you should know that a better name for global warming is climate change, because not every place on earth will be warmed due to pollution, only the average temperature of the earth as a whole.
Lastly, you you advise us all to stop breathing in order to stop climate change. It might be a little easier to stop polluting than to stop breathing, so unless you want to head off the effort to stop breathing, you should read some and educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again by writing something like this.
Breton Nicholas • Apr 5, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Hi Austin, I don’t know who you are or why you wrote this blurb, but I’d like to help you out a little bit by illustrating how obnoxiously uninformed your argument is.
First, you point out that weather on earth never stops changing. I’m really glad you brought this up, because I don’t think anyone ever realized this before. I mean the weather CHANGES?? Who Knew?!
Second, at the end of your first paragraph, you don’t do a good job of explaining to the reader what a cold winter really means. Let me tell you: A cold winter has nothing to do with the issue. You might argue that two years ago we had a huge amount of snow, and therefore, it’s not getting warmer. Well actually, a warmer climate puts more moisture into the atmosphere, which would come to us in the form of snow in the winter.
Thirdly, you should know that a better name for global warming is climate change, because not every place on earth will be warmed due to pollution, only the average temperature of the earth as a whole.
Lastly, you you advise us all to stop breathing in order to stop climate change. It might be a little easier to stop polluting than to stop breathing, so unless you want to head off the effort to stop breathing, you should read some and educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again by writing something like this.
Ben Marks • Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 am
As the rest of this piece has been addressed in the comments above, I’d like to comment on the last sentence. “We’re only human, we can only impact our environment so much”
The Exxon-Valdez Oil spill dispersed more than 30 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, and killed tens of thousands of animals as well as a recorded 6 billion salmon eggs. Currently in the United States alone, there are over 20,000 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. It is common knowledge that water must be purified before one drinks it, or you die of dysentery. The average American throws away a ton of trash per year, or 600 million tons of trash in America.
And if none of that convinces you that humans can hurt the environment, consider this: A modern nuclear weapon, detonated in Times Square, would destroy 500 square miles in a nanosecond
Ben Marks • Apr 4, 2011 at 10:37 am
As the rest of this piece has been addressed in the comments above, I’d like to comment on the last sentence. “We’re only human, we can only impact our environment so much”
The Exxon-Valdez Oil spill dispersed more than 30 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, and killed tens of thousands of animals as well as a recorded 6 billion salmon eggs. Currently in the United States alone, there are over 20,000 uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. It is common knowledge that water must be purified before one drinks it, or you die of dysentery. The average American throws away a ton of trash per year, or 600 million tons of trash in America.
And if none of that convinces you that humans can hurt the environment, consider this: A modern nuclear weapon, detonated in Times Square, would destroy 500 square miles in a nanosecond
Zakary Kraimeche • Apr 4, 2011 at 10:24 am
I agree with Howard.
Zakary Kraimeche • Apr 4, 2011 at 10:24 am
I agree with Howard.
Howard Zuo • Apr 4, 2011 at 9:55 am
Your entire argument is premised upon the single warrant that humans produce only 5% which is a small number compared to Mother Nature’s 95%. But what you have to understand is that the universe works by being in a near perfect balance. For instance, Earth’s atmosphere is composed of 21% oxygen. If this were to be 20%, life on Earth could not exist due to inadequate respiration. If this were to be 22%, the cells in your body would suffer extreme damage from oxidization. 1%? Doesn’t seem a lot, but only 1% destroys a balance needed for life. Numbers have to be contextualized in order to make sense.
Howard Zuo • Apr 4, 2011 at 9:55 am
Your entire argument is premised upon the single warrant that humans produce only 5% which is a small number compared to Mother Nature’s 95%. But what you have to understand is that the universe works by being in a near perfect balance. For instance, Earth’s atmosphere is composed of 21% oxygen. If this were to be 20%, life on Earth could not exist due to inadequate respiration. If this were to be 22%, the cells in your body would suffer extreme damage from oxidization. 1%? Doesn’t seem a lot, but only 1% destroys a balance needed for life. Numbers have to be contextualized in order to make sense.
John G.L. • Mar 25, 2011 at 7:51 am
I second that, David.
John G.L. • Mar 25, 2011 at 7:51 am
I second that, David.
Jack Burden • Mar 24, 2011 at 11:46 pm
I agree with David. People often don’t understand that global warming does not mean straight heating of the earth, but massive changes in weather in relatively short amounts of time (hence the fact that we got snow last month, then two days later it was 60). Also, like David said, while that 5% may not seem like a lot, it really is, because, over the course of time, humans have not produced nearly that much CO2 until recently. Global warming not existing is just a myth that pro-fossil fuels lobbyists, businesses, and congressman put out there to protect their own interests.
Jack Burden • Mar 24, 2011 at 11:46 pm
I agree with David. People often don’t understand that global warming does not mean straight heating of the earth, but massive changes in weather in relatively short amounts of time (hence the fact that we got snow last month, then two days later it was 60). Also, like David said, while that 5% may not seem like a lot, it really is, because, over the course of time, humans have not produced nearly that much CO2 until recently. Global warming not existing is just a myth that pro-fossil fuels lobbyists, businesses, and congressman put out there to protect their own interests.
David Proctor • Mar 24, 2011 at 11:56 am
Okay…the people who blame one season’s worth of weather on global warming don’t understand what climate change is. It’s about trends.
Fact: the Earth is getting warmer. Fact: climate change doesn’t mean it’s always going to be warm. It means that there will be more extremes. If last winter was the coldest on record, that’s actually a sign of global warming. Finally, you say that humans can’t be responsible for global warming if they are the cause of only 5% of the CO2. I’d be interested in hearing what source that’s from. But humans aren’t CAUSING global warming. It would happen anyway….eventually. But that 5% is massive over the course of 10, 20 or 30 years. We are rapidly accelerating it.
You ask why there isn’t a law against breathing. Because that would cause the extinction of the human race? I don’t think searching out alternative energy sources or recycling is going to end life on Earth. Our constant abuse of mother nature could.
David Proctor • Mar 24, 2011 at 11:56 am
Okay…the people who blame one season’s worth of weather on global warming don’t understand what climate change is. It’s about trends.
Fact: the Earth is getting warmer. Fact: climate change doesn’t mean it’s always going to be warm. It means that there will be more extremes. If last winter was the coldest on record, that’s actually a sign of global warming. Finally, you say that humans can’t be responsible for global warming if they are the cause of only 5% of the CO2. I’d be interested in hearing what source that’s from. But humans aren’t CAUSING global warming. It would happen anyway….eventually. But that 5% is massive over the course of 10, 20 or 30 years. We are rapidly accelerating it.
You ask why there isn’t a law against breathing. Because that would cause the extinction of the human race? I don’t think searching out alternative energy sources or recycling is going to end life on Earth. Our constant abuse of mother nature could.