Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon?

[gfilmsuk]

I believe the whole process is natural. I recently read on the web that there are now over 6,000 new business start-ups in the UK alone all making money from so-called global warming. It's big business! Multiply this globaly and I think a lot of people are getting rich out of others fear.
Dave

[andyc123]

I love this debate and tend to err on the its a natural process side. I saw the that inconveniant truth program had already been mentioned which I thought was great. In all honesty I think it comes down to yes we can contribute and possibly speed it up but realistically the amount of CO2 in the sea, and given off by natural processes is almost beyond our comprehension! I love the quotes that we get fed too....... ohhhhh its the warmest year on record for almost 400 years - wow!!! The planet is 4.6 billion years old but we are in real trouble now as its the warmest year in the last 400 - my oh my what have we done?? My A-level geology teacher used to go nuts about the whole thing and point out the rock patterns showing its not the first and probably wont be the last.

This time around it will be interesting to see how it affects us though, rising sea levels, loss of land area etc....

[Mercadante]

andyc123 wrote: he planet is 4.6 billion years old but we are in real trouble now as its the warmest year in the last 400 - my oh my what have we done??

We have, in very short order, warmed up the planet. We know how we've done this, we know that what we've done so far will continue to warm the planet for a while, we know that we're carrying on doing what we're doing in ever greater numbers, and we know that there are natural processes that will magnify what we do.

Of course the planet has been as warm before. There have also been mass extinctions associated with rapid global warming before. That is the issue. No one is worried that the rocks won't be able to stand the heat.

And yes, after a mass extinction, eventually new species evolve, after a few million years. The rocks wouldn't mind, but the rest of us would.

[gfilmsuk]

Ha Ha what's evolution apart from an unproved theory. Where are the transitional links that prove it, ok I'll change that, where is there just one transitional link.
evolutionists believe we all crawled out of a smelly slimy pit, grew legs and conquered the world. Yeah right. My ancestors didn't and I am the product of an intelligent creator otherwise life has no reason.
Global warming is natural and it will never, ever be the cause of the end of the world. I have a very informative book which tells me this.

[Mercadante]

gfilmsuk wrote: where is there just one transitional link

Lots here: Talkorigins: transitional links

[gfilmsuk]

Again just theory with no real proof whatsoever, simply because there isn't any.
If you believe that Darwins 'theory' is correct, then you must also believe what he said about all non-whites being a lesser species, or in his words, a sub-species. I don't think you'll find many supporters there, in fact I find that quite apalling.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Based on global warming and cooling that has happened in the past, based on fossil succession, and carbon and oxygen isotope data, global warming is nothing new. There was in fact a rapid warming at the palaeocene/eocene boundary 55mya - however it is currently happening a far greater rate than ever before, which is the real problem

[Mercadante]

gfilmsuk wrote: Again just theory

No, real fossils, of just the sort predicted by the theory, and for which we have no other explanation that isn't completely ad hoc.

gfilmsuk wrote: If you believe that Darwins 'theory' is correct, then you must also believe what he said about all non-whites being a lesser species, or in his words, a sub-species.

A sub-species is not a lesser species, it is a group within a species. That said, Darwin was a man of his time and undoubtedly held some views we'd now deplore about foreigners and women. But agreeing with one of his ideas - the important one, for which he's remembered - doesn't oblige anyone to agree with everything he ever said.

[gfilmsuk]

The only proof that evolution offers is that God has a sense of humour and if evolution is real why do mothers still only have one pair of hands?

[dragonfly]

I would say it is the earth the erth is in a natural cycle lasting about 30 000 years at the moment we are leaving an ice age the earth will get hotter then it will cool down again
in to another ice age ice core readings showed this life trapped 60 meters down frozen in ice leaves of trees ferns mainliy in the artic as for the uk we as a whole only release 2% of the carbon in the atmosphere as for the goverment they put aslant on it say they can tax us on it

[andyc123]

Agree with dragonfly really in that I think it is part of a natural cycle. Yes we may well contribute but I think we can sometimes get a little carried away (certainly when convenient) in how important we think we are in the grand scheme of the planet. The forces of nature are quite capable of putting us right back in our place as they have demonstrated several times over recent years.

Taking this further is a tricky one, as I doubt that anyone on here at least would wish to use this as an excuse to damage the planet, on the other, more cynical hand, as is mentioned, it is an excellant root cause for a new tax!

[RantingSquirrel]

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

The only proof that evolution offers is that God has a sense of humour and if evolution is real why do mothers still only have one pair of hands?

You have got to be kidding. There is the fossil record for evolution, sediment core samples and rock strata all 'evidence' for an Earth billions of years old. How do you think we get fossil fuels? Its compacted biomass.

Even some of my (very) devout Catholic friends accept that the old testiment is probably more about symbolism than fact. The Garden of Eden, with a vegetarian T-Rex, living in harmony with humans (what the creationism museum claims)? Give me a break.

Can you please point us to the book which you claim proves evolution is not real? (and please do not say the bible).

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by RantingSquirrel

Can you please point us to the book which you claim proves evolution is not real? (and please do not say the bible).

Thre are plenty of books on creationist science (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) but there all about a scienitifically accurate as the chronicles of narnia

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Thre are plenty of books on creationist science (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) but there all about a scienitifically accurate as the chronicles of narnia

Let's burn "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".

And I am getting rid of that wardrobe upstairs.

[gfilmsuk]

Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
Answer these Ranting Squirrel and I think you've got the break you're looking for.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

[StuartDH]

...and if god made us, who made god?

Seriously, let's not have this turn into a big religious debate...it's one of the rules that we don't allow on the forum. Please keep things on topic.

Thanks

Stu

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by andyc123

Agree with dragonfly really in that I think it is part of a natural cycle. Yes we may well contribute but I think we can sometimes get a little carried away (certainly when convenient) in how important we think we are in the grand scheme of the planet. The forces of nature are quite capable of putting us right back in our place as they have demonstrated several times over recent years.

Taking this further is a tricky one, as I doubt that anyone on here at least would wish to use this as an excuse to damage the planet, on the other, more cynical hand, as is mentioned, it is an excellant root cause for a new tax!

I too agree that global warming and cooling is a natural phenonemen , however the accelerated warming since the industrial revolution is not - and while the "planet" will undoubtedly survive this anthropogenically inspired blip, there is somewhat more doubt that homo sapiens will - and while the exitinction of homo sapiens as a species might not be a bad thing for the planets ecosystem as a whole it isnt a route that i fancy taking.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

...and if god made us, who made god?

Seriously, let's not have this turn into a big religious debate...it's one of the rules that we don't allow on the forum. Please keep things on topic.

Thanks

Stu

awww spoil sport

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

awww spoil sport

lol - its a pointless argument anyway - we all know that in reality the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arklesezure

[agrumpycow]

Originally Posted by eeyore

lol - its a pointless argument anyway - we all know that in reality the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arklesezure

What the flip is the arklesezure

[gfilmsuk]

Originally Posted by StuartDH

...and if god made us, who made god?

In answer to your question Stuart;
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

[andyc123]

Strange that despite the fact the some of the views expressed here are very constrasting they almost merge at times........

Originally Posted by gfilmsuk

In answer to your question Stuart;
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

Last year I did a full third of a physics degree with the OU which was pretty tough, but one of the things covered was about commonly asked questions regarding the universe. One of these was that if the universe isn't infinate then what is outside of it?

The answer from a physics point of view is that as space and time are properties of the universe themselves, so then the question is not vaild.

Amazingly similarities from such contrasting viewpoints.

Anyway, I agree with Stuart, we seem to have the original topic well behind here.

[gfilmsuk]

If you've been affected by anything you've read in this thread, help is available by calling 0870......