CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I do too but most I see are not to help the planet they are trying to make money , but I will admit there are a few people in this world that want to reduce the strain on our planet . :) I see where you are coming from. :)
It's all propaganda. Government trying to get control. There is nothing wrong with the enviroment. Sure, there's litter, but you don't see animals dropping dead everywhere, do you?
2) what does this number represent? Like a fraction of a percent of all scientists--and a lot aren't even in relevant fields? This is like pointing out that 1,000 Physicists disagree with the conclusions of Biologists about the diversification of life. Their point is immaterial and they need to step aside.
3) First, let's get this into some perspective. GISS made the correction 6 years prior to your news articles. it was in a 2001 update of a Hansen et al. paper correcting some of the data. It wasn't news by the time these papers reported more sensationalist tripe. Here's what the paper reports: The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.
First, it's a comparison between 2 independent analysis and represented data. One from the USHCN and the correction by GISS. Further, the correction leads to no discernible difference between the past graphs and the current graphs. It would be like moving the dot representing Los Angeles on a map 1/100th of a centimeter to the left and then papers reporting "UNITED STATES MAPS WRONG EDUCATION IN PERIL!" a decade later.
It's all propaganda.
Only if you're ignorant.
There is nothing wrong with the enviroment.
Except for Ice-Sheets melting, oceans rising, planetary surface temperatures trending upward etc. etc.
Fiction. They have to keep us interested which usually means scared, or they are out of a job. They're just the same as all the other fear mongering demagogue outlets in the media. Do your own research and stop relying on people who are by definition gonna give you the run around.
I don't get what's so wrong about people trying to reduce pollution in the world. If there is such a thing as global warming then we've got a lot to be worried about and reducing pollution is an absolutely must. If there isn't global warming then we become more self-sufficient, self-reliant developed countries with less pollutants and a larger long term energy plan.
Then why would we think of that now and not when we started using oil and making cars , if global warming were real I would not have a foot of snow lying on the ground!?!?
Epic ignorance. Jesus Christ somebody get this kid a book.
We're not talking about the world turning into a desert overnight. We're talking about a change of a few degrees in average temperature. Not enough to create an obvious change in weather, but enough to melt the polar ice caps and cause sea levels to rise.
The consensus scientific opinion on global warming has been spelled out by the IPCC. Yes, you can find a few scientists who disagree with them, but you can also find hundreds of thousands of scientists who agree. They are highly qualified. They have integrity. They are careful with their words. There is no logical reason to doubt them.
Even if you think global warming is some kind of massive conspiracy, you can read their report for yourself. It's available online, for free. They have citations showing where they got every little piece of info, and those sources in turn state how they got theirs, and so on. Here's the report, in plain English: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Lol THAT's your evidence that debunks the whole global warming theory?? That there's snow?
Your lack of knowledge on the climate change issue tells me one thing - not that you're retarded or stupid but you're American and right-wing. amirite?
Mumbo jumbo about global warming? Do you often dismiss conclusions reached by every major scientific organisation on the planet as mumbo jumbo?
I would be happy to discuss with you the science behind global warming-science that you appear to be very ignorant of.
So please, explain to me why you think global warming is mumbo jumbo...unless of course you're just parroting conservative talking points, in which case, please continue to spout bullshit with complete disregard for the facts.
I hate how you try to make it sound like all the scientists and all the smart people all believe in global warming. How convenient for you and your agenda. Well, it's not true.
I could debunk this, but it would be a waste of time. The IPCC's conclusions are agreed with by 99% of scientists. You can always find a handful of dipshits who will disagree with anything.
Why are you so eager to accept the words of a tiny minority against an overwhelming majority of qualified, honest experts? Sorry Jake, but I think you're being completely blind here.
And if you're going to object, do so with an unbiased third party. Glenn Beck is dishonest and deceptive.
Oh for fuck's sake, if you had taken sixty seconds to read the article you would know the answer. It says 90% of all kinds of scientists believe global warming is happening. 82% say humans are contributing to it. And again, it says 97% of all scientists who are actually qualified to comment on the issue (climate scientists) say both that it's happening and that humans are contributing.
Could it be that there's some incentive for Climate Scientists to push GW?
No. They're pretty much all college professors, right? They make money by teaching. They get paid either way.
As for the story about the hacked e-mails, it's clear you didn't read this article either. If you had you would have read that no damaging information was found, and that the e-mails, if anything, solidify the view that these guys are legitimate. From the bottom of the page: "If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists"
How about those Climate Scientists that are baffled by the temperature decline trend?
No one expects global warming to be a steady increase year after year. Some years it gets colder, some years it gets warmer. But the average trend over many years is an exponentially increasing one.
In conclusion, you're an asshat and the world would be a better place if you killed yourself.
Yes. Because GISS (Godard Institute for Space Science) and IPCC data are cross-confirming. Let's start with the Godard Institute for Space Science (GISS) data. Data from Hansen et al., with indexes of land-ocean temperature and traditional analysis of only meteorological station gauges shows a consistency in climate temperature increase across both measurements(1)(2). Moreover, there is consistency across latitudinal bands: N., S., Low latitudes with respect to the increase in mean temperature (a trend, that is)(3). And this goes on and on for various analyses and their respective data--another quick example is the urban-rural dichotomy: we see urban areas encountering increasing temperatures, while their comparative rural areas remain statistically unchanged, and the difference between the two increasing over time(4), in a trend relative to industrial ouput and the late 19th century onward.
Then there's the IPCC data, that confirms the trends highlighted by the GISS data.
(2) Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf
And the thing is, this is such a minuscule fraction of the data out there that is confimed across disciplines in oceanic and earth sciences. And don't get me started on Monckton; the guy is a misinformer and he does it purposefully. He knows the data and what it says and he chooses to misrepresent it. So... what claims in any academic article (please don't tell me you disagree with news articles about discoveries) do you disagree with and why do you think the claims made in research papers are not truthful?
I was very specific about who the proponents of global warming are: every major scientific organization in the world. Beck however conveniently decides to ignore this fact and bring in only those people who think that global warming is not happening.
I could talk to you about the MIT scientist that is referenced on this program, and why he has most certainly not "disproved" global warming. Seriously just ask and I'll do it (I'm not doing it now becuase it's 2 in the morning and I have to get up early), however this matters very little. What should be more revealing is the fact that Beck will immediately accept the minority viewpoint (minority is an understatement here) just because it is convenient for him to do so.
So without knowing any of the science, you there are two options: believe every scientific organisation in the world (including NASA, the people who put us on the moon) or this one guy who supposedly "disproved" global warming. Fortunately I do have somewhat of an understanding of the science, and therefore my decision is a little better informed, but I think you can see my point.
Scientific my ASS scientists make up problems to make money ''freeloading off the government'' Global warming is their biggest excuse yet only a few things of what they say are real. For example pluto, pluto is one of the more popular planets and scientists decide to downgrade it to ''small planets group''? What the hell do you call that, its not a star ,its not an asteroid so its a planet! We have only been using oil for 200 years,the earth is bigger than your mom sooooooooooo now we worry about oil all of a sudden and oh no! Global warming! What in the hell? the earth was made to live on it is going through PP planet puberty its just changing and scientists see just a little glitch and BAM more money . so shut the hell up I know what I am talking about you apparently don't , PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ASSHOLE!!
What do you mean? ''Mahollinder''? Are you saying that I am not serious well I am.
The thing is, if you are being serious, then you have a grave misunderstanding of the economics of researchers and a general ignorance of what is of concern with respect to anthropogenic climate change... and Pluto.
I'll start with Pluto because it was one of my favorite planets as well. The thing about Pluto is that it's made out of ice, has an elliptical orbit that passes the orbit of Neptune, and is exceedingly small, and it exhibits all of the characteristics of kuiper belt objects and few characteristics of planets. And, y'know, it's locationally and behaviorally a part of the kuiper belt. So there's very little practical reason to continue calling it a planet, it just makes little sense now.
Scientific my ASS scientists make up problems to make money ''freeloading off the government'' Global warming is their biggest excuse yet only a few things of what they say are real.
Now, researchers, specifically, get paid very little money unless they're rockstars (having made some important contribution to whatever field of study they are engaged in). And most of the money they receive for research comes from their employers: often public and private schools, paid for by tuition, grants: both private and government. And the amount of money they receive tends to be proportional to their output. So they're not leeching, especially not off of the or any government, since their findings pay for themselves in the long run. There is an interesting discussion on Youtube between Creation advocate Kent Hovind and a Molecular Biologist and he makes a similar point, that research ultimately pays for itself ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnb_pmRDpqU ) and is a somewhat self-contained economy.
What the hell do you call that, its not a star ,its not an asteroid so its a planet! We have only been using oil for 200 years,the earth is bigger than your mom sooooooooooo now we worry about oil all of a sudden and oh no! Global warming!
The use of oil is relevant insofar as it concerns the ecological footprint of the use of oil and other polluting agents.
What in the hell? the earth was made to live on it is going through PP planet puberty its just changing and scientists see just a little glitch and BAM more money .
It's not so much a glitch as it is a coming ecological and demographic disaster, whose trend is quantifiable: from sea-level rising, ice-sheets (Arctic ice-sheet and the Greenland..ian Ice-sheet) losing mass, global mean temperature rising etc. etc. and these phenomena are confirmed by terrestrial and satellite observations.
so shut the hell up I know what I am talking about you apparently don't , PUT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE ASSHOLE!!
But I don't think you do know what you're talking about.
No your wrong its a glitch not a disaster , your brainwashed by the government. Then why did they not see that when they discovered pluto and identified it as a planet? They still make money off the simplest things, and where did all that money come in the first place?!? If we have the technology to launch a rocket with human beings in it to the moon , we have the technology to find a hell of alot more oil than we are now. ''But I don't think you know what your talking about.'' BULL S*!!!!
Being ignorant sure makes life simple, doesn't it? You don't have to know anything at all. Scientific consensus, with modern technology at its disposal, years and decades of research cataloged in academic journals and READILY AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO REVIEW, which undergoes a strict-strict peer-review process, confirmed across multiple disciplines is reduced to a "glitch" by someone who hasn't done any research, whatso-fucking-ever.
Maybe your time would be better served teaching at CIT, MIT or Stanford instead of wasting your time debating on this website. You know everything, after all, without ever having to open up a book. Your myopia and nescience is enviable. It really is.
Instead of going to scientific shit , a glitch is defined as a small problem or object,instead of going to the harvard website just look it up in the dictionary, good god , I have a busy life as it is why should I plant my head in a book ? You seem to be always buried in a book ! O!,and by the way YOUR BANNED FROM THIS DEBATE,not because you think that I think your right , its that I don't feel like wasting time arguing with you! So YOU are most definetly BANNED from this debate!!!
