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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
" There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere." -Al Gore
"Some of the scientists, I believe, haven't really changed their opinion a little bit on global warming, there's a lot of differing opinions and before we react I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of whats taken place." - George W. Bush
Now its your turn to make your voice heard, comment your opinion and maybe you can be the person the world is looking for to terminate the issue of Global Warming.
Questions to Answer:
Is Global Warming Real?
Is there action being done today to help slow down Global Warming?
Is our President doing Anything?
Who will be most affected?
What will the Human Race become?
Is this the reason for the 2012 theory?
Will killing a large amount of people help? (Legal Abortions, Death pentalty enforced,)
Is Global Warming a story made up by our government to make money?
"Well the people who chose to ignore it are in their own little worlds, What can the people who support the issue and want to take action do?"
Genetic engineering will be of vital importance in helping us to create sustainable fuels that can be produced efficiently. Bacteria that create ethanol from cellulose, in high yield, would be of help.
Engineering higher yielding crops, that don't need pesticides because they produce a specifically engineered insecticide within would help our environment.
I've seen suggestions for using rooftops in cities as either solar panels or gardens, however solar panels to date are not very efficient to manufacture.
Plants that can be engineered to absorb carbon dioxide more efficiently, into sucrose collection reservoirs could act as scrubbers for cities that have smog. The sucrose could be harvested and used as a cattle grain supplement or purified for human consumption.
Bacteria or plants that can take in methane and produce some sort of product should be developed post-haste in case certain oceanic methane deposits get released in the next decades, as well as for cattle farms.
There are all sorts of things we can do to lessen the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, and live a more efficient lifestyle.
"There is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes."
Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations signed by 141 scientists [1]
Wow, 141 whole scientists. Worldwide. Gosh, that completely balances out the official findings of the IPCC and the entire National Academies of Science of...
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganada, The UK, The US, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
You mean you think the vast majority of the entire planet's scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy to falsify data and trick the world into thinking average global temperatures are increasing at a concerning pace for some kind of vague nefarious reason while the 141 people on some petition are trying to tell the world the truth about their secret plot too?
Yes, it's all a grand conspiracy perpetrated by "Big Global Warming" so they can sell us all planet-sized air conditioners. And all those national academies are in on it!
What an idiotic example? I dislike government, yet I do not believe that they are wholly incapable of good. I believe for other reasons that global warming is fake.
It was a joke? Hyperbole. But if you look at the "arguments" made by deniers (such as yourself), it's pretty clear what's going through your heads, and it looks a lot like what I described. The bias you guys have against government action is so strong that it skews your perception of reality.
I mean seriously, indicting the field of climatology as a whole goes beyond mere paranoia into the realm of absurdity. The fact that you guys routinely make such extraordinary claims with a straight face should be more than enough to convince any reasonable person that you're either suffering from severe cognitive dissonance or are being intentionally dishonest.
You are generalizing libertarians. I think that the government holds too much power in many regards - but that does not mean that I believe in every single libertarian ideal any more than it means that you embrace every liberal, or socialist, or whatever-your-are ideals.
First understand the logical fallacies, then accuse people of using them.
No, pointing out the existence of the consensus recognized EXPERT OPINION is not "argumentum ad populum".
If you pointed out that over half your bowling league thought you were right about a claim you made about quantum physics therefore you must be right, THAT would be argumentum ad populum.
All that I meant by that was that the majority has been wrong many, many times before.
Also, there are a great number of scientists who disbelieve global warming - I believe that there is a conspiracy because the global warmists attempt to negate or hide other opinions. If Global Warming was all that true, why would they be so scared of disbelievers?
Yes, "the majority" in a vague, general sense has been wrong.
However, at any given point in time if the vast majority if the clearly recognized experts in a field are agreed on something they are FAR more likely to be right about it then, say, some conspiracy theorist on the internet posting things from his parent's basement who thinks the world is being hoaxed for reasons they can't really explain. (I mean seriously, ARE the world's scientists trying to scam us into buying planet sized air conditioners and they've all bought stock in the company that's planning to produce them 10 years from now and get filthy stinking rich? what the hell do people think the goal would be here exactly?)
And no, there are NOT a "great many" scientists who disbelive global warming. there is a statistically tiny minority. And nobody is "scared" of disbelievers, they're dismissive of people who deny clear evidence. As they should be.
Right now the public "debate" about global warming has been focused upon whether we are to blame for its happening. This is largely a method to confuse the situation, and post-pone any form of action being taken. If we're looking at who to blame, after all, we won't be focused on what needs to be done.
There is a scientific consensus that our climate is changing in predictable ways. Instead of focusing the discussion upon whether man is responsible, which as I stated is common these days, we need to be creating policies that will enable us to lessen this change or survive its outcome.
If we are not the cause, and it is a natural phenomenon, then it is logical to conclude that we can do nothing to 'lessen this change'. That is the purpose of the debate, to find out if it is worth creating policies.
There are plenty of things in life that are natural, which we haven't caused but can lessen the severity of.
Examples:
A hurricane is about to strike Florida. We can evacuate to lessen the damage caused by the hurricane. We can also build more resilient structures.
An asteroid is about to hit the earth. We could develop a survival plan, build shelters, salvage animal and plant species until the sky isn't dark any longer.
Floods are common in parts of the world, we can lessen their encroachment by building manifolds that direct the waters away from us.
"Protecting ourselves and eradicating or lessening the problem are two different things."
Except that on the issue of global warming, protecting ourselves and lessening the problem happen to coincide.
It's frankly puzzling to me how paralysed people are in their denial of the obvious: a threat to our survival exists, if we suffer an ecological collapse we may become extinct. If your town was flooding, or burning, wouldn't you want to work on some way of reducing the problem? Would you remain so paralysed in debate that the townsfolk all drown or burn to death?
I understand that this global warming is a cause of what we have done to this planet from years ago...what we do now will effect what will happen 10 yrs from now...we can't undo what we already did from the past but why is it that we are so slow to move?...many communities/cities force recycling...why not all?..we still allow companies to do as they want...I don't know...teaching our children is one thing...but how can we educate the older crowd...the one's that haven't the slightest care in the world?...they just think, "well, I'll be dead by the time the world will show it's damage"....
The rain forests...what are we going to do with all that?...all our medicines come from there...are they replanting as they destroy?
yes, I believe so, although I believe a better term is "Climate Change". The fact that the way the weather is behaving is a sign that things are changing.
Is there action being done today to help slow down Global Warming?
I think that the "Green" movement is going in the right direction, but I don't believe that enough people participate in it to make it truly effective yet.
Is our President doing Anything?
I believe he is, but at the moment he has other issues on his plate that get more of his attention.
Who will be most affected?
Perhaps 3rd world countries, who won't have the financial means to help them deal with climate changes.
What will the Human Race become?
I'm not sure of that.
Is this the reason for the 2012 theory?
No...that is due to people who think the Mayan calendar is showing the end of the world.
Will killing a large amount of people help? (Legal Abortions, Death pentalty enforced,)
No, that won't help. Death penalties are for people in prison, who are not wasting as much energy as those who are free, and abortions are on humans who aren't here yet, so they are not wasting energy or poluting the planet.
Is Global Warming a story made up by our government to make money?
GLOBAL WARMING is definitely real. Regardless of its title and media-driven hysteria, it is ruining mass parts of earth that very slowly are ruining health and environment.
To DENY this would be idiotic. Im not saying to go outside and do your most. but even as little as buying recycled toilet paper can save trees. That due to deforestation, the trees aren't alive enough together to produce carbon. This causes landslides, mudslips, floods, ETC. ETC. ETC.
did i say floods? with the right weather conditions we could have another... anyone heard of Katrina, or how about Haiti!?
Those who dont believe or in denial read for yourselves. There are massive amounts of scientific reasoning that back up what i just said which is RUINING our earth and HUMANS/OTHER SPECIES. this is called proof and evidence that Global Warming is as real as you outside feeling a thunderstorm.
Global warming or not i think we should start taking action, it doesnt have to be anything big, just start using your car less, walking more, and small things like turning off the lights when you go out, because if everybody did this it would help dramaticly, you can help the earth and keep your comforts but cut on the things you dont need
Naturally, this is a very serious - and worldwide - issue. Naturally, action should be taken against it.
Now, humanity seems to have been ignoring this issue for quite sometime, despite all efforts made to draw the matter to the publics attention. Several countries have launched various campaigns in order to tackle the publics "lack of interest" in the issue, though they seem to have little effect as of late. This is the beginning of a very serious problem; if the public cannot accept the obvious, then humanity is a lost cause in future.
The obvious that I refer to are greenhouse gasses; the primary suppliers to the travesty of global warming. Our carbon emissions from day-to-day life are bad enough, not to mention the high usage of petrol-fueled transportation, which is adding to the air pollution. Our ozone layer is falling apart, and what fight is humanity putting up?
Now, getting to the action; we should obviously all start pulling our fingers out and start reducing our daily carbon emissions, such as supplementing our home technology for a more natural, pollution-free method of doing things (such as hanging clothes out to dry rather than using a machine). The next obvious is a cut-back on using automotive transportation. Public transport is a suitable option, and is something that the VIC (Australia) government should be dealing with in a more serious matter (in my opinion). WE should all be taking public transport when we can, but I understand that the use of a car is vital in many (if not more) instances. In this case, our government's should be investing further into the production and distribution of Electrically-Powered vehicles, and even supplementing them for our current vehicles, which in the case of gas-use is harming our ozone layer. This would be a hard adjustment, but a necessary one.
We are facing many potential problems should we not heed the warnings given to us about the global warming issue. It will begin with simpler problems, such as an increase in potential melanoma and other various skin-related diseases. It will progress to a further depletion of glaciers in regions such as Antarctica, which will create an immediate rise in sea levels. Eventually, we will be roasting our planet to the point where it will be uninhabitable.
Humanity needs to wake up and smell the burning sun, because the rays are only going to increase if we keep up the ignorance of this rising situation, as we have done for too long already.
I would say that global warming should be controlled to manageable limits.............if not this warmth will melt the existence of humans on earth.....as we are able to see a few consequences of it.............
Well its like evolution, we've observed it, we know it happens but people still try to claim its not a reality.
"Is there action being done today to help slow down Global Warming?"
Ya the problem is what little action is being taken equate's to a band aid being put on a severed leg.
"Is our President doing Anything?"
Good God know, anyone who thinks otherwise is really quite naive. In order to do any substantive he would actually have to take measures that would hurt big business, is anyone really stupid enough to think thats going to happen.
"Who will be most affected?"
Ironically the poorest people on the planet will be worst affected, you know those people us europeans colonised, robbed, raped, stole from, and commited genocide after genocide against. Or i should say those people who we continue to rob, rape, steal from, and continue to commit genocide against.
"What will the Human Race become?"
Hard to estimate, whatever it becomes it is highly unlikely it will be any better than it is now, although it may be much worse.
"Is this the reason for the 2012 theory? "
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Will killing a large amount of people help? (Legal Abortions, Death pentalty enforced,)"
Well if you're referring to population control yes but only a massive scale the kind of which would be near impossible to implement due to a multitude of factors i.e. proper recognition of the problem,and desire to rectify its root cause, international agreement and co-operation (as if!!!), logistics, manpower, economics, etc, etc., etc, ............
"Is Global Warming a story made up by our government to make money?"
I hope so but am as certain as i can be thats its not.
- Yes, it is an objective verified fact. I learned the science in college and became well versed in all the ideas about it - to say that global warming is a myth is to live in a delusional world.
Is there action being done today to help slow down Global Warming?
- There are some actions happening, but not on the level necessary to effect significant change. although there are some efforts, C02 emissions are still rising and are expected to rise every year for the forseeable future.
Is our President doing Anything?
Our president is in favor of energy policies that promote green tech and sustainable energy generation programs, however I do not believe these are significant.
Who will be most affected?
-The poor and the people living in low elevation with respect to ocean level. The sea will rise over the next century, causing significant alterations to the world as we know it and causing more people to live in less area with less resources and less food - wars are going to happen more and more frequently over the scarce resources.
What will the Human Race become?
- We will become what we are determining ourselves to be - but this isnt saying much. we could do fine as long as we dong kill ourselves over the geopolitical dynamics. Religious delusion, nationalism, ignorance and apathy are the biggest issues threatening our future.
Is this the reason for the 2012 theory?
- No, the 2012 theory is a synthesis of many dooms-day ideas and the tendency for people to assume that the end is near when in fact everything is pretty normal. 2012 is strongly associated with the Mayan Calender but anyone who knows anything about their culture can tell you that there was no association between the end of their calender and a supposed end of the world scenario.
Will killing a large amount of people help? (Legal Abortions, Death pentalty enforced,)
- Abortions help (~1.6 Million in the US alone = significant number), but death penalty is insignificant because only a few thousand people die from this. A global epidemic would be good to reduce our anthropogenic greenhouse emissions - but i dont know if this would cause progress in the human state of existence.
Is Global Warming a story made up by our government to make money?
- Global warming is real, there is no government involvement - this is apparent since the previous administration (G W Bush) denied the validity of global warming up until the very end.
One knows that mankind is one of the main causes of Global Warming. This is already scientifically proven, and yet people still litter. Yes, our everyday commute shouldn't be halted, but for crying out loud, at least, restrain yourself from tossing a cigarette on the street.
Regardless of whether or not humans are the sole or major contributing factor to global warming, action should still be taken to protect the heath and over all well-being of the human race. Last time I checked, carbon emissions weren't beneficial to a healthy lifestyle. In addition, more efficient and green technology just seems to be the next step in technology, and it looks cool too :)
This is basically the point I was trying to make earlier. The "debate" has made denialists actually argue against less pollution, and cleaner energy. It makes the mind hurt when you think that we should all be on the same side of this, working towards cleaner (or clean) energy, energy independence, less pollution, and fewer endangered species but instead we see people actively fighting against this.
To the issue to the slow economy, If the human race is the reason for global warming, then what can we do as people to prevent the growing of Global Warmth. job wise (List)? To make this issue a win-win. How can we invest in clean energy if we barely have money? Who should be the leader in this action? China? United States?
There should be action taken against the 2012 theory. Anyone who believes it should be shot at midnight, Dec 31, 2011, you know, just to make them happy that the prediction, for them at least, is right.
No offense but by what basis do you assert that it is not true.
"Personally, if I was face to face with a polar bear, I'd rather it were dead."
The world's ecosystem and atmosphere is a dynamic equilibrium of interactions between lifeforms,forces and chemicals both organic and inorganic. These incomprehensibly complex interactions that take place on many levels (i.e. macroscopic, microscopic,......nanoscopic etc.) exist in a extremely delicate balance. It makes sense that when one very important variable is changed significantly it can perturb the state of the system that depends on it. Now im not going to say that everything pertaining to global warming is true but ive seen more than enough evidence to convince me that it is by far the most reasonably and logical explanation. I will amdit it may be deeeply flawed like most scientific theories are when they originate, but to beleive it isn't true and essentially side with the other side seems to me to be a clear violation of Occam's razor.
What can possibly be offensive to me about dissent from my opinion?
Furthermore, what art can you perform that could possibly mitigate my disapproval and still dissent?
but by what basis do you assert that it is not true
That all of the world's respiring organisms over the last 600 million years have had and continue to have a far more significant impact on atmospheric Co2 concentration than the factories that man has operated over the last 150.
Is there a warming trend? It is apparent to us that there is, though whether it is relevant is not quite as clear (see the little ice age). But do I accept that mankind can possibly have affected the world's climate to any significant degree in so short a time and with such a paltry amount of activity? A resounding no.
In addition, I question the political motivations of the researchers that are charged with presenting the information they profess to have gathered.
The world's ecosystem and atmosphere is a dynamic equilibrium of interactions between lifeforms, forces and chemicals both organic and inorganic.
Oh indeed? One was dispose to think that everything was managed by a bearded man sat behind a modest desk.
These incomprehensibly complex interactions that take place on many levels
Incomprehensible up to the point that we can start arguing based on our comprehension of them?
macroscopic, microscopic,......nanoscopic etc.
Yes, those are words.
It makes sense that when one very important variable is changed significantly it can perturb the state of the system that depends on it.
The climate has fluctuated to an incredibly great degree throughout the course of human history, sir. 4 degrees by 2100 is not enough to melt ice anywhere in the ice caps, if that figure is even correct.
I will amdit it may be deeeply flawed like most scientific theories are when they originate, but to beleive it isn't true and essentially side with the other side seems to me to be a clear violation of Occam's razor.
It is irresponsible to urge the entire world into action based on a philosophical formality.
"What can possibly be offensive to me about dissent from my opinion?"
Well i didn't just dissent from your opinion i excused you of coming to a conclusion basec on inadequate information, some people may find that offensive, and since i have no idea how much research you have done on this topic i thought it was fitting to include it.
"Furthermore, what art can you perform that could possibly mitigate my disapproval and still dissent?"
Well there is no art i can perform that will mitigate your disapproval, its simply meant to convey the tentative nature of my disagreement.
"That all of the world's respiring organisms over the last 600 million years have had and continue to have a far more significant impact on atmospheric Co2 concentration than the factories that man has operated over the last 150."
So you don't beleive rising CO2 levels have anything to do with it ok, fair enough, lets look at your claim. While i agree the contribution to the concentration of CO2 in the earths atmosphere larger from non-human entities that really isn't a valid bases for beleiving anthropogenic warming is a lie. The fact is our current eco system has evolved to accommodate that level of CO2, by releasing reapped CO2 from oil and gas we are disturbing the balance, of this there is no dispute even among global warming sceptics as the measurements simply don't lie. To think that this will have no effect is naive.
"Is there a warming trend?"
Well the considering the strong correlation between exists between CO2 concentration in the atmopshere, and global mean temperature, i would say yes.
"But do I accept that mankind can possibly have affected the world's climate to any significant degree in so short a time and with such a paltry amount of activity? A resounding no."
While i understand your scepticism i don't agree, look out at what we have done to this planet, we have acquired gthe ability to drastically alter it, and we have used this abilty in the msot agressive wway possible over the last 150 years, our pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere has been relentless.
"In addition, I question the political motivations of the researchers that are charged with presenting the information they profess to have gathered."
Again i understand your secpticism but there is scientific concensus on this, or as close to one as has ever been attained.
"Oh indeed? One was dispose to think that everything was managed by a bearded man sat behind a modest desk."
No he was slacker so we had to replace him with all the interactions.
"Incomprehensible up to the point that we can start arguing based on our comprehension of them?"
Yes.
"Yes, those are words."
Yes i know.
"The climate has fluctuated to an incredibly great degree throughout the course of human history, sir."
Really.
"4 degrees by 2100 is not enough to melt ice anywhere in the ice caps, if that figure is even correct."
That figure is mroe or less accurate, and if realised will be catastrophic for the human race. You claim to know what is an isn't enough to melt ice caps, where exactly did you get your degree in climatology? Again i have to refer you to the fact that there exists a concensus among climate experts, the fact is the ice caps melt and re-solidify in a cycle, it has been calculated that a 4 degree rise in temperature will be enough to prevent them from re-solidifying. This is already well underway, and there is no shortage of evidence for it.
"It is irresponsible to urge the entire world into action based on a philosophical formality."
Really, so you think it more responsible to comtinue with business as usual and just see what happens?
I strongly urge you to read anything written by the famous scientist James Lovelock the man who who invented Gaia theory, and is also credited with discovering the problem of CFCs in the atmosphere, i have read four of his books and found them all equally disturbing. Not that i only read books and listen to people that support my opinion on this matter but frankly most of the main opponents of manm,ade global warming ive found are people with no real grasp of science, im not saying there a few credible scientists on the dissenting side but they are in the extreme minority.
Well there is no art i can perform that will mitigate your disapproval, its simply meant to convey the tentative nature of my disagreement.
Disagreement, sir, should ne'er be tentative. One should dispute another only in the full confidence that one is correct oneself.
So you don't beleive rising CO2 levels have anything to do with it ok
I believe that a correlation is not a causation.
To think that this will have no effect is naive.
To suggest that it hath the principle or sovereign effect, to the exclusion of all other forcing agents, is equally naive and portentious of far greater consequences should we have err'd in our appraisal.
Well the considering the strong correlation between exists between CO2 concentration in the atmopshere, and global mean temperature, i would say yes.
To my recollection, I appended a yes to the obviously rhetorical question. However it was my understanding that recent data had shown the sun's influence in these matters to be most drastic.
Again i understand your secpticism but there is scientific concensus on this, or as close to one as has ever been attained.
The notion of scientific consensus is itself quite ludicrous. One can find dissent even regarding Sir Isaac's lustrous laws of motion; decrees considered by me to be almost unequalled in certainty and efficacy. As for anthropogenic global warming, the consensus is a bare-faced lie. Wave as many lists of signatures as you wish.
No he was slacker so we had to replace him with all the interactions.
Incidentally, it hath occurred to me of late that Jesus Christ, who preached much sense, was probably atheistic himself, and merely dress'd his sermons in the guise of religious proselytisation as was the norm at the time that the credulous masses should put stock in what he said. Qu'est-ce que pensez-vous?
You claim to know what is an isn't enough to melt ice caps, where exactly did you get your degree in climatology?
A degree in the commonly fraudulent school of climatology is not required. The temperature of fusion for the compound H2O (my apologies, CreateDebate doth not recognize subscripts) is roughly 2 Celsius degrees.
Really, so you think it more responsible to comtinue with business as usual and just see what happens?
As a cultural adventure in empiricism, yes.
and is also credited with discovering the problem of CFCs in the atmosphere,
Did'st know that the same man as invented Chlorofluorocarbons also invented leaded petrol? What a disastrous career!
Disagreements should always be tentative due to the absense of pure objective knowledge in this reality with which we are presented.
"I believe that a correlation is not a causation."
So what exactly do you beleive is causing the warming, due to think it is connected with understanding the nature of magnetic waves in the Sun's atmosphere like so many oil companies would have us beleive.
"To suggest that it hath the principle or sovereign effect, to the exclusion of all other forcing agents, is equally naive"
It is never naive to go with the prevailing scientific concensus.
"However it was my understanding that recent data had shown the sun's influence in these matters to be most drastic."
I few peer reviewed papers supporting your point of view cannot be counted as disproving anything when the overwhelming majority of the evidence if opposed to them. If the amount of peer reviewed papers asserting what you beleive were stacked next to the amount asserting what i beleive you would realise the magnitude of your error in making this point.
"The notion of scientific consensus is itself quite ludicrous"
That is simply not true, and you're going to have to get your facts straight if you want to continue this debate i.e.
"The majority of those working on climate science accept the proposition that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) explains most of the recent rise in global temperatures; even sceptics accept that the scientific consensus is against them."
"One can find dissent even regarding Sir Isaac's lustrous laws of motion"
Em, concensus doesn't imply 100% agreement:-)
" decrees considered by me to be almost unequalled in certainty and efficacy. "
There is an element of personal judgement involved in screening out effects of background noise all such decrees, even the fundamental axioms of mathematics cannot be considered pure objective knowledge.
"As for anthropogenic global warming, the consensus is a bare-faced lie. "
Source please.
"Wave as many lists of signatures as you wish."
Well i prefer to understand how you came to the conclusion no such concensus existed.
"Incidentally, it hath occurred to me of late that Jesus Christ, who preached much sense, was probably atheistic himself"
I prefer to consider him pantheistic as i am.
"A degree in the commonly fraudulent school of climatology is not required. "
Fraudulent? If a degree in climatology is fraudulent what degree's are not fraudulent? Geology, Meteorology, Geophysics, are these all fraudulent disciplines that have been invented to hood wink also?
Sounds to me like you put far too much faith in the east anglia email debacle which from my understanding was taken out of context, and completely and totally blown out of proportion by climate sceptics the majority of whom have no scientific understanding whatsoever.
"As a cultural adventure in empiricism, yes"
I didn't think i would be saying this but i can really see the value in that opinion.
"Did'st know that the same man as invented Chlorofluorocarbons also invented leaded petrol? What a disastrous career!"
Disagreements should always be tentative due to the absense of pure objective knowledge in this reality with which we are presented.
If you disagree, I presume that you have some reason to do so. If you cannot attest to that, why on Earth have you even contacted me? Until you are sure, you had best keep your dissent to yourself.
So what exactly do you beleive is causing the warming
I do not know, nor am I aware of the extent of the warming when recent (relatively speaking) fluctuations are accounted for. Our oldest direct records are about 160 years old and coincide with the end of an abnormally cold period in the northern hemisphere.
What I do know is that a statistical correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels has been observed or purported and a causality inferred. This is, to my mind, either irresponsible or fraudulent.
It is never naive to go with the prevailing scientific concensus.
That is mere facile nonsense.
I few peer reviewed papers supporting your point of view cannot be counted as disproving anything when the overwhelming majority of the evidence if opposed to them. If the amount of peer reviewed papers asserting what you beleive were stacked next to the amount asserting what i beleive you would realise the magnitude of your error in making this point.
I do not measure scientific truth by the number of papers written in favour of one theory.
That is simply not true
I will desist in my refutation when you and your peers renounce the word consensus and cease to use its connotations to suggest that everybody agrees with you. A phenomenon of language of whose existence you are entirely aware. Regardless, I am entirely unconcerned with who, or how many agree with you.
The history of science demonstrates that consensus is irrelevant to a theory's veracity.
and you're going to have to get your facts straight if you want to continue this debate
A line of officious gibberish not worth the chemical bonds you severed to type it out.
Em, concensus doesn't imply 100% agreement
That is not what it denotes, but it is exactly what it implies.
There is an element of personal judgement involved in screening out effects of background noise all such decrees, even the fundamental axioms of mathematics cannot be considered pure objective knowledge.
I find it difficult être d'accord with a philosophy that assumes an axiom to disprove or cast doubt upon the very notion of any postulation being true.
Source please.
Every source on the internet is biased, rendering them absolutely useless on matters of "whose side has more credibility". For example:
It's mere quibbling about irrelevant statistics that have absolutely no bearing whatever on the objective truth.
I prefer to consider him pantheistic as i am.
Pantheism is mere equivocation. Either one believes in a God in the context that the religious actually use it, or one does not. To consider the universe itself to be God is poetic nonsense.
Fraudulent? If a degree in climatology is fraudulent what degree's are not fraudulent? Geology, Meteorology, Geophysics, are these all fraudulent disciplines that have been invented to hood wink also?
That is not a logical inference from my statement.
Sounds to me like you put far too much faith in the east anglia email debacle which from my understanding was taken out of context
No, I have merely observed the use of a correlation based on recent data to demonstrate a causation that is purportedly unique in the history of a planet of which we have only a minute and imperfect understanding.
I used to be more categorical, but I have seen too many arguments from either side, each in turn refuted vigorously and using many credible and purportedly legitimate sets of data. Until there is a new one (for the same arguments circulate as blood, acquiring new quantities of the vital essence and increas'd momentum with every circuit of the body), I have decided to simply wait until either nothing happens or I awake one morning to find myself drown'd by seawater. Je suis engagé dans la poursuite des connaissances essentielles; I have only a little interest in the popularised realm of uncertainty.
I didn't think i would be saying this but i can really see the value in that opinion.
Though that is not to say that I advocate continued dependence on fossil fuels. There are many logical and readily apparent reasons to move on. Indeed, it does not seem absurd to me that the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming may have been exaggerated to promote the development of new means of locomotion and energy liberation/conversion (the term "energy production" or "generation" implies an absurd untruth).
Actually, what is your opinion on the existence of an essential, ultimate or elemental particle of the universe?
Still a brilliant man though.
I recall that Mr. Hooke ("Ut tensio, sic vis") spent a great deal of time developing avian steam engines and that Sir Isaac himself was a theologian of all things, so perhaps all genius is accompanied by some degree of folly.
Indeed, a correspondent of mine once suggested that cultural immortality was desirable!
"If you disagree, I presume that you have some reason to do so"
Yes i do disagree, and i disagree because i beleive in the reality of Athropogenic warming.
"If you cannot attest to that, why on Earth have you even contacted me? "
I can and have attested to it but like any scientist i cannot say anything with 100% certainty, i acknowledge Global warming may not be a reality, but i consider the chances of this to be negligible based on the available evidence.
"What I do know is that a statistical correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels has been observed or purported and a causality inferred. This is, to my mind, either irresponsible or fraudulent."
Well im sorry to tell you that the entire worlds scientific community have considered this, a consensus could never have been achieved if the theory relied on correlation implying causality.
"That is mere facile nonsense."
Facile, this is anything but facile sir, i must say you are incredibly short sighted on this matter.
I do not know what kind of megalomania you suffer from but i seems to me that anyone that label's the established scientific concensus as 'nosense' is either omnipotent, or else suffering from a severe phychopathological condition.
"I do not measure scientific truth by the number of papers written in favour of one theory."
Nor I, but i do look at the available evidence.
"That is not what it denotes, but it is exactly what it implies"
It implies that the dissenting vioces can live with the judgement, i acknowledge this criteria has not been universally met, but i feel the number of dissenting scientists is not large enough to reduce sufficiently the accuracy of its meaning, and thereby make its use invalid.
"I find it difficult être d'accord with a philosophy that assumes an axiom to disprove or cast doubt upon the very notion of any postulation being true."
It does not disprove it, it simply states that pure objective knowledge doe not exist.
"Pantheism is mere equivocation.Either one believes in a God in the context that the religious actually use it, or one does not."
It isn't really that simple.
"To consider the universe itself to be God is poetic nonsense."
Funny how you would consider something to be nonsense on the basis of it being poetic. I can assure that my beleifs do not conflict with your own.
"Actually, what is your opinion on the existence of an essential, ultimate or elemental particle of the universe?"
I am reluctant to speculate, but i feel intuitively (i acknowledge may be very very wrong) that the universe will play an unending game of hide and seek with those who seek to uncover its mysteries.
Since you appear to using this site as a means to quell the boredom again i was hoping you could respond to the debate, that is of course you've lost interest in it.
It seems to me that your scepticism is predicated on unwillingness to accept something that reiles on correlation implying causation, but you should know that once a pattern has been established in science the burden of proof rests with those who beleive it doe not hold.
The facts are following:
(1.)Large increases (relative to natural equilibrium) in a gas known to trap heat have tajken place due to human activity
(2.)The global mean temperature has risen significantly in the same time that said activities have been talking place.
(3.)The established correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature is very very strong
These facts (among others) are enough to convince the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community that correlation = causation
(1.)Large increases (relative to natural equilibrium) in a gas known to trap heat have tajken place due to human activity
(2.)The global mean temperature has risen significantly in the same time that said activities have been talking place.
(3.)The established correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature is very very strong
As I have already stated, sir, and in no ambiguous terms, is that I have seen relatively convincing arguments from either side, and that appeal to majority, or authority does not in any way affect me.
I have therefore decided to solve the problem empirically and observe for myself if any of the effects predicted will come to pass.
The one thing we have not done, for obvious reasons, is assay whether a decrease in worldwide emissions of man made CO2 creates a corresponding change in the world climate. That, if demonstrated two or three times, would persuade me to look more favourably on the hypothesis. I understand that this must seem like an unrealistic demand, but it is the experiment I consider to be most appropriate.
The scale is too grand to operate on a hypothesis.
"at, if demonstrated two or three times, would persuade me to look more favourably on the hypothesis. I understand that this must seem like an unrealistic demand, but it is the experiment I consider to be most appropriate."
I suppose this is the main point of contention, and the fact that i am clearly more convinced by evidence, and that fact that the scientific community have reached an unprecedented consensus.
If you really think the kind of change required is an unrealistic demand then there isn't much point in continuing this debate as the availble evidence will probably never be enough to satisfy you.
I also await more data on the correlation between solar activity and climate fluctuation. It is my opinion that our understanding of the extent of their relationship is insufficient to form any definite conclusion.
Of course, it is prudent to make feasible attempts to reduce CO2 emissions in consideration of the available data, but this Kyoto agreement (representing the principle political reaction) is unjust and inoperable. To impose economic sanctions at such a time and based on such virgin science is both irresponsible and foolish.
Science is not urgent. It is not rash and emotional. It is at its best a cautious, tentative and flexible being.
Well, let's see, we recently found out that scientific data pertaining to the Earth's supposed warming was faked. Obviously there's more to the whole theory than is first apparent. Let's look at who has gained from this theory. The Government, with their carbon taxes. The owner of the carbon credits scheme (note scheme) Al Gore (note Al Gore). Scientists who receive funding for researching this theory. That is all that comes to mind off hand, but note that all of the people who gain from legislation pertaining to Global Warming are the chief advocates of the Global Warming Theory. This in itself would suggest that the whole thing is rather dodgy, but we must now consider the science of the theory.
1. The hole in the ozone layer.
A hole in gas? That is physically impossible, and any one of the so called 'scientists' who form this 'overwhelming' consensus should know that.
2. The melting Ice caps.
Meteorologist Jeffrey Masters says: '...most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected to increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC." There you go.
3. Reducing 'carbon footprint'.
Well, this is completely unnecessary, as the easier and cheaper solution would be to simply plant more trees. Mor carbon dioxide means more plants, more plants means less carbon dioxide. Self-solving problem it would seem.
So, before you believe comments on evidence that you yourself have neither actually seen, and by extension, never verified, take the time to think about the theory and make an imformed decision. I, for example have never actually heard of this scientific consensus, except from people with no real argument, who just want to appear intelligent. As I have said countless times, stating that one side of an argument is wrong or right does not make it wrong or right. It just makes you look like a fanatical fool. Anyone remember that whole year 2000 apocalypse thing? Doomsday preachers have always been wrong. When one theory is irrefutably proven to be wrong, they just make another.
Looks like you're a major victim of "Did not do the research." You watched your local news who coddled your denial instead of actually READING the emails.
Your further rely on pride "I'll discount what the expert scientists say and reason myself that we can just plant trees" and don't look at the weather data yourself, but rely upon people to interpret that for you.
Well, let's see, we recently found out that scientific data pertaining to the Earth's supposed warming was faked.
No "we" didn't. What data was faked?
Let's look at who has gained from this theory
Who gains from a theory is irrelevant to its veracity. You might as well be arguing that aeronautical engineers, pilots, the transportation and tourist industries, and cities with airports benefit from the theory of gravity, and therefore it should be considered dodgy and suspect. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that Electrical theory is wrong because we have an entire army of lobbyists fighting on behalf of the energy industry, would you? Of course not. Who cares who benefits from this? You make it seem like these researchers are stuffing their pockets with money. Researchers are among the lowest paid workers in the developed world.
A hole in gas? That is physically impossible, and any one of the so called 'scientists' who form this 'overwhelming' consensus should know that.
Tthere are places on the planet where the concentration of the volume and mass of the protective layer is lower, thereby permitting higher concentrations of solar radiation to bombard the planet's surface. That's all "hole" means. It's not to be taken too literally. Although the lack of O3 in areas would constitute a hole in the layer. Either way that is a bad thing.
That said, whether our current explanatory model is correct or not, we would still have to account for why the ozone layer is weaker in locations around the planet (like Australia, where weakening ozone and higher solar radiative forces are causing increasing incidents of skin cancer). Facts and observations don't go away just because a theory is wrong. We are still seeing increasing mean surface temperatures.
So, before you believe comments on evidence that you yourself have neither actually seen, and by extension, never verified, take the time to think about the theory and make an informed decision.
Are you holding yourself to the same standard?
I, for example have never actually heard of this scientific consensus, except from people with no real argument, who just want to appear intelligent.
Ignorance isn't a refutation of the fact.
Anyone remember that whole year 2000 apocalypse thing?
Yeah, I remember this. And I remember that there was almost literally no one in the appropriate fields who were being alarmist. It was the News-media and frightened laymen. In this case, we have people in relevant fields of study across multiple scientific disciplines informing us that we are trending towards some bad times if things continue the way they are. And the scientists certainly aren't being alarmist. A simple read of most, if not all academic articles would alert you to this very fact. They are, however, being very serious and stern with respect to the risk we are taking by doing nothing.
Recently, emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK - which claims to be the repository for the most comprehensive set of climate data on the planet - contain what many observers see as clear evidence that scientists have been altering that data to fit in with their man-made global warming beliefs.
Who gains from a theory is irrelevant to its veracity.
I was pointing out that the main advocates of the Global Warming theory are those who stand the most to gain from funding, taxes etc.
All the industries you mentioned make money from voluntary customers, however G.W legislation means that people receive no tangible gain from money they are forced to pay.
there are places on the planet where the concentration of the volume....
Though I was indeed too literal in my interpretation, that in itself highlights how pro G.W scientists use wordplay to scare the populace. And, as you pointed out, we still cannot verify the theory that this is related to Man-Made pollutants.
Are you holding yourself to the same standard?
The fact that I am arguing against the common opinion would suggest that I my theories are my own.
Ignorance isn't a refutation of the fact.
Then please enlighten me as to how controversy can exist along with consensus.
almost literally no one in the appropriate fields who were being alarmist.
My point was that people aren't happy without a doomsday theory of some kind, regardless of who advocates it.
Recently, emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK - which claims to be the repository for the most comprehensive set of climate data on the planet - contain what many observers see as clear evidence that scientists have been altering that data to fit in with their man-made global warming beliefs.
Oh, the overblown, out of context and hacked emails that skeptics and the media refer to as "climategate".
I was pointing out that the main advocates of the Global Warming theory are those who stand the most to gain from funding, taxes etc.
The main advocates of global warming are the scientists. They stand as much to gain as any other scientists who do research in any scientific discipline. And a "theory" in science is the highest level of certainty available in science. So, emboldening the word "theory" as if that somehow diminishes its standing is unnecessary. And ultimately, so what? This has no impact on whether the theory accurately accounts for our observations.
All the industries you mentioned make money from voluntary customers, however G.W legislation means that people receive no tangible gain from money they are forced to pay.
That's myopic. Hospitable environments and resources, which we use to survive are a tangible benefit of not perpetuating energy imbalance with anthropogenic forcing.
Though I was indeed too literal in my interpretation, that in itself highlights how pro G.W scientists use wordplay to scare the populace
No it doesn't. It only highlights you being too literal.
And, as you pointed out, we still cannot verify the theory that this is related to Man-Made pollutants
I never pointed this out. We have a very good understanding of how radiative agents work and impact the planet's climate.
The fact that I am arguing against the common opinion would suggest that I my theories are my own.
Why don't you argue against the science?
Then please enlighten me as to how controversy can exist along with consensus.
Because the consensus refers to the scientific community's unity, especially those in the relevant fields. The "controversy" exists almost singularly in groups of people who don't know the science, aren't practicing scientists, don't have any education in science, can't debate the science on science's terms, and only have recourse to debate the political ramifications and whoo-whoo about three or four emails out of thousands over two decades as indicative of some grand fraud, because they are suspicious of words like "trick", which are ever-present in scientific literature. But they don't know the latter because they don't (and possibly can't) read scientific literature and depend almost entirely on the News-media and blogs to do the science for them.
My point was that people aren't happy without a doomsday theory of some kind, regardless of who advocates it.
Point taken. But again, this is irrelevant to whether a theory accurately explains our observations. Anthropogenic forcing exists; it creates and perpetuates energy imbalance which the planet might otherwise be able to self-correct.
'Oh, the overblown, out of context and hacked emails'
Oh yes, scientists accused of adjusting data refute that claim and say the emails were hacked. Therefore they must be telling the truth. Please.
The main advocates of global warming are the scientists. They stand as much to gain...
Now you're being obtuse, Al Gore, for example owns the carbon credits company, so if people believe his film, then he will make more money. I am pointing out that everyone who expounds on the G.W theory stands to gain financially from people believing them.
That's myopic. Hospitable environments and resources...
I am working from the position that G.W is a lie or a mistake, so I obviously don't believe in such benefits.
No it doesn't. It only highlights you being too literal.
Well what would you think of when you hear the word 'hole'?
I never pointed this out. We have a very good understanding of how radiative agents work and impact the planet's climate.
'That said, whether our current explanatory model is correct or not, we would still have to account for why the ozone layer is weaker in locations around the planet'
Looks like you did.
Why don't you argue against the science?
Well as, according to you, the common opinion is the science, it would seem that I am.
Because the consensus refers to the scientific community's unity
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.)
But again, this is irrelevant to whether a theory accurately explains our observations.
That is not my point. My point is that this is just another scientific scare that will come to nothing, just like the Bird and Swine Flu 'Pandemics'.
Oh yes, scientists accused of adjusting data refute that claim and say the emails were hacked. Therefore they must be telling the truth. Please.
You're a child-molesting pedophile. False and ignorant accusations are just that. When you go over the three or so emails that have become central to skeptical accusation, you'll realize that they've been taken out of context. Would you like me to explicate?
Now you're being obtuse, Al Gore, for example owns the carbon credits company, so if people believe his film, then he will make more money.
Is Al Gore the only person skeptics are capable of naming? I get that he's a poster child for criticism; he represents the policy ramifications of global warming. And you guys can't argue against anything but the policy ramifications. Al Gore is one man. His movie Inconvenient Truth was accurate on principle and much of the science as well. Some of it is/was wrong. Calling it alarmist is excessive. And again, the main advocacy group of global warming are the scientists. Don't confuse the "loudest" proponents with the most important and substantive group.
I was only describing what a hole in the ozone layer is.
Well as, according to you, the common opinion is the science, it would seem that I am.
Come on now, stop putting words in my mouth.
More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
I've known about the OISM since the first version of Robinson's et al. article was circulated in the Journal of Physicians and Medicine. But I'll take that. It's at ~30,000 now. And that number still only accounts for approximately 0.3% of scientists by the OISM's own definition of applicable scientists (anyone with a BA degree and up in a science field, even if that counts people in irrelevant fields of study like computer science or engineering). Lists like this don't mean much to me. What's important is the corresponding data provided in the Robin et al. article that underpins the petition letter that irrelevant people are signing, and that is more than substandard as an "accurate" representation of the summary of the evidence.
That is not my point. My point is that this is just another scientific scare that will come to nothing, just like the Bird and Swine Flu 'Pandemics'.
Jesum peasum. "Pandemic" only means that an infectious disease is spreading in human populations over large tracts of land. Both avian and swine flu were communicable, occurred in human populations and spanned massive mileage. The big hoo-ha over swine flu, particularly, was that there was needed precaution if it was similar to the H1N1 virus that hit the globe in the early 20th century and killed between 40 and 100 million people. It was important for organizations like the CDC to make sure that people were as prepared as possible for a similar strain of the H1N1 virus. See the 1918 flu Pandemic. Fortunately it wasn't the subtype that hit the globe in the 1900s. But, we know that there's a precedent for catastrophe. So there's every reason to raise alarms when shit can and has in history hit the proverbial fan.
The main advocates of global warming are the scientists. They stand as much to gain as any other scientists who do research in any scientific discipline. And a "theory" in science is the highest level of certainty available in science. So, emboldening the word "theory" as if that somehow diminishes its standing is unnecessary. And ultimately, so what? This has no impact on whether the theory accurately accounts for our observations.
It does have an impact if the theory is untrue, which I believe it is. The main argument is that temperatures have been on the rise since 1880. However, it is a known fact that the mean temperatures of N.America and Europe were unusually cold from 1300 to 1870. This is known as the little Ice age and its existence is advocated by geologists across the world. Coincidentally, the period of "global warming" began in 1880, just as the little Ice age ended. This means that we are measuring the mean global temperature in the 21st century against those of an abnormally cold period? I am not, in my view, being unreasonable. I have nothing to gain from the world becoming inhospitable. I refute the notion of Global Warming because of the paucity and inconsistency of evidence and because of the suspect motives for governments to push it forward. As I believe I have said, Al Gore made a film called "An Inconvenient Truth" advocating the man-made global warming theory and calling for people to reduce their carbon footprint. The video contains 9 proven factual inaccuracies. On the website, under the tab "evidence" the theory is explained, but the only evidence give is a pictorial comparison of Mt. Kilimanjaro today and in 1970. The picture from today has less snow. That picture could have been taken at any time of year and even photo-shopped. The carbon credits scheme Gore advocates, making said credits an international trading commodity designed to raise funds for...whatever is being done to stop G.W, was joint created by Maurice Armstrong and.....Al Gore. So why do people trust his opinion on G.W when he stands to make a lot of money from people believing him?
I would expect anybody who believes in and raises awareness of G.W to attempt to personally reduce it. Mr.Gore, however, owns a mansion which uses ten times as many KWhs per annum as the average American household. If he was genuinely concerned about G.W, does it not stand to reason that he would be conservative in his contribution to it? That is what I mean by the advocates of global warming standing to gain from it. If you stood to make, say, $20m by people buying your anti-fairy devices, would you not do all in your power to make people believe in dangerous fairies? You might not, but most people would.
That's myopic. Hospitable environments and resources, which we use to survive are a tangible benefit of not perpetuating energy imbalance with anthropogenic forcing.
It is only myopic if you believe the G.W theory to be true. If I did, I would obviously agree with you, but as I do not, you cannot call me myopic for not seeing benefits to combating a problem I do not believe to exist.
No it doesn't. It only highlights you being too literal.
Not true. What do you think of when you hear the word hole? A gaping, unoccupied space or a gradual, inexorable and ultimately unexplained thinning?
Why don't you argue against the science?
There is very little science to argue against, just government hysteria masquerading as scientific fact and hiding behind insufficient evidence of suspect origin and veracity.
But they don't know the latter because they don't (and possibly can't) read scientific literature and depend almost entirely on the News-media and blogs to do the science for them.
The same can be said for those who advocate global warming, aside from, of course, the scientists. However, you use the word scientist as though it were some kind of argumentative atom bomb. The fact is that scientific consensus is rare and has almost never existed. I would recommend reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything". This details the history of science. In it, you will find that scientists are far from infallible and often misrepresent results to further their own theories and opinions. Scientific consensus is a bad thing. When everybody believes something that is incorrect, who will seek the truth. I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as scientific consensus, even on some of the most basic areas of science. Physics, the realm of thermodynamics, is one of the least coherent sciences. Quarks, tauons, tachyons, string theory, FTL travel, none of these things are agreed upon and neither is global warming.
Supporting Evidence:
Little Ice Age
(www.eh-resources.org)
This means that we are measuring the mean global temperature in the 21st century against those of an abnormally cold period?
That's a somewhat troubling summary. The little ice age, first and foremost, was not a globally "abnormally cold period". The most cooling was essentially isolated to the northern hemisphere and the "little ice age" had patterns of temperature change caused by Atlantic oscillation and el nino phenomena. What is being measured in current climate science is both mean global surface temperatures and forcing agents, and impact on the planet's environment, flora and fauna.
Towards the middle 20th century, it is well studied that natural forcing agents - i.e. volcanic and solar activity - contributed most of the warming measured towards the mid-1900s (see, for example: "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate" (Meehl et al. 2003)). However, after 1940, anthropogenic forcing has increasingly imbalanced the earth's natural energy sensitivity (to radiative forces): which is what essentially "naturally" accounts for variability in climate. And because of this imbalance, there has been a precipitously increasing temperature trend that is being caused largely by human industrial activity.
I refute the notion of Global Warming because of the paucity and inconsistency of evidence and because of the suspect motives for governments to push it forward.
There is, unfortunately for you, plenty of consistent evidence. I would suggest that you visit academic journals and institution websites to view this evidence: PNAS, EBSCOhost or JSTOR all present great metasearches for relevant articles on the issue.
However, you use the word scientist as though it were some kind of argumentative atom bomb.
I use "scientist" in the same way I use "lawyer": someone who has been educated in a specific field and is still practicing in that field. What I would like to see from disbelievers or denialists (or whatever term you or anyone else wishes to be called) is for you guys to take an article (for example: Nicola Scaffeta's "Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change"), show where it's wrong and move the fuck on. I'm tired of hearing about the errors or motives of a Politician's presentation made into a movie, or conspiratorial jargon about government involvement. What I want is for the debate to be about what is present in the scientific literature and the debates occurring in scientific circles. Until you can do that or present someone's work who has done that, you have nothing to offer insofar as constructive debate is concerned... except Gore bashing and conspiracy theory. And I don't want to hear that anymore. It's tired. Old. Doesn't in any way, shape or form show that the science itself is wrong.
The little ice age, first and foremost, was not a globally "abnormally cold period"
That is irrelevant. If one area is colder than usual when a mean temperature is taken, then the mean is affected. That is a mathematical fact. The mean of 3,3 and 3 is 3. The mean of 1,3 and 3 is 2.34, a 22% decrease. Hence, any variation, anywhere on Earth will alter the mean.
There is, unfortunately for you, plenty of consistent evidence.
Such as? I searched your sites and found only papers detailing the ramifications of G.W, not proving it. Perhaps this is an error on my part. To that end, please provide a link to a relevant paper.
or whatever term you or anyone else wishes to be called
Sceptic, if you please.
What I would like to see from disbelievers or denialists (or whatever term you or anyone else wishes to be called) is for you guys to take an article (for example: Nicola Scaffeta's "Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change"), show where it's wrong and move the fuck on.
We are getting ahead of ourselves. I am not debating whether people are contributing to climate change, I am debating on whether it is happening at all.It boils down to whether or not you believe those who advocate the theory. I believe that the entire notion is a tool designed to curb the consumption of fossil fuels, which I believe is a far greater issue anyway.
The melting of the the Ice caps is the root of the major catastrophes that people see coming. However, 80% of Arctic and Antarctic being underwater, and water being 25% denser than Ice, I theorize that, should the ice-caps melt, sea levels would decrease. If 8 is below and 2 is above, then take the sea levels to be +8. If the ice were to turn to water, then it would shrink in volume by 25%. This would bring total volume from 10 to 7.5, meaning sea levels would be +7.5, .5 less than before. Note that volumes have been simplified, but the mathematical principal remains the same. The issue remaining, of course is the addition of fresh water to the seas, affecting plankton and collapsing aquatic food chains. This is all true and would be unfortunate, but then I don't like fish, so I don't give a shit.
Until you can do that or present someone's work who has done that, you have nothing to offer insofar as constructive debate is concerned...
There is no such thing as constructive debate. Constructive would imply progress, but I have never seen a debate make any kind of impact on anything. Critics remain critics and proponents remain proponents. This debate is a perfect example: despite all the evidence you have presented, I still do not believe in global warming. Naturally you will make that out to be evidence that I am being obstinate, but look at any debate on this site and you will find that the same people argue for the same sides for the duration of the debate.
The only evidence I can offer will be in fifty years time when nothing has happened.I will leave you with this thought: if you are right, and you appear quite certain that you are, then we are all going to die quite horribly and painfully either from the world drowning us or in the subsequent war over resources. There is nothing that can conceivably be done at this point, because the world simply cannot feed itself without oil, and the time it would take to eradicate its use with renewable power would be about as long as you say we have left. So why bother?
Also, below is a link to a graph representing temperature and co2 levels over the last 400'000 years or so. You will notice that co2 levels have risen in accordance to the pattern shown in the graph. To me, this says that humans make a negligible contribution to atmospheric co2 levels, but I leave you to make a conclusion.
You made it relevant when you inserted that we are "...measuring the mean global temperature in the 21st century against those of an abnormally cold period?" We're not. One is not a global temperature measurement and the other is. For example, we had abnormally cold weather in New York earlier this year, and many people used that fact to somehow suggest that global warming wasn't/isn't happening. What is happening in local areas, does effect the overall measurement, but it only indicates variability in a trend, especially among statistical outliers.
I searched your sites and found only papers detailing the ramifications of G.W, not proving it.
I was not originally under the impression that you were skeptical of global warming altogether. Go to the NASA:GISS website for relevant collated data sets. There are 1880-Present global mean temperature data, hemispheric temperature data (1)(2)(3) and (4), among other data. The globe is warming. That much has been observed and measured.
It boils down to whether or not you believe those who advocate the theory.
Debating the theory and debating the fact are two different things. You've claimed (perhaps inappropriately) that you question whether it (climate change/global warming) is happening to begin with. It is. That has been observed: global mean surface temperatures are increasing precipitously. The theory only aims to accurately explain what forces are at work to cause (1) the climate to change and (2) the current trend being observed. So, are you skeptical about the theory or the fact?
The melting of the the Ice caps is the root of the major catastrophes that people see coming.
Not really.
...sea levels would decrease.
You're thinking about it in the wrong way. It's thermal expansion that's causing sea surface levels to rise. Because water is more dense than ice, it has more thermal expansivity; that is, it's volume is increasing as temperatures increase.
The only evidence I can offer will be in fifty years time when nothing has happened.
The problems of global warming are already occurring across the planet. You don't have to wait 50 years. Off the coast of India, small islands are visibly disappearing (and have disappeared)because of sea levels rising, causing depopulation and unexpected emigration. There was a recent heatwave in Pakistan (over 51 degrees celsius or 124 degrees Fahrenheit) that emerged within the Asian warming trend. It killed hundreds of. Just two very recent and immediate consequences of the increase in mean surface temperatures in one general region.
Also, below is a link to a graph representing temperature and co2 levels over the last 400'000 years or so...To me, this says that humans make a negligible contribution to atmospheric co2 levels, but I leave you to make a conclusion.
Don't leave it to me. Instead, read the accompanying article, and then the following articles: (1)(2)(3) from the very same website. The website you cited through the graph is almsot singularly geared towards debunking the claims skeptics "like you" make.
One is not a global temperature measurement and the other is
Global temperature measurements are built with frequency tables compiled using multiple local temperature measurements. Any variation in those local measurements will affect the mean temperature as a whole. We are comparing present mean temperatures to those of 1880 and beyond. As North America and Europe were abnormally cold at that time, the mean temperatures we are comparing ours against do not accurately reflect normal mean temperatures. I presume that you know what a mean is? The way you consider a mean and its component parts to be separate suggests otherwise.
we had abnormally cold weather in New York earlier this year, and many people used that fact to somehow suggest that global warming wasn't/isn't happening.
Funny, we had abnormally cold weather in Europe earlier this year. I suppose that the same abnormalities occurring simultaneously on two separate continents is your idea of a 'variability in the trend'? That said, I acknowledge that local weather patterns are not indicative of global trends. However, I wonder whether proponents' measure local weather trends to support their theories?
I was not originally under the impression that you were skeptical of global warming altogether.
Sceptical is spelt with a "c". I am sceptical of the notion that temperatures have risen above the 'normal' range. The graph I supplied shows that they have not, so far. It is not my fault if the people who originally posted it on their site misinterpreted their own evidence. I will remain sceptical until more time has past. I believe it is impossible to measure these things based on a century's statistics. As a species, we have only recently become able to measure these things, to suddenly presume omniscience is madness.
So, are you skeptical about the theory or the fact?
Again spelt with a "c". If you are using Mozilla firefox, a dictionary application can be downloaded. It will highlight any spelling mistakes made.
To your question, I have, upon further analysis, come to the conclusion that temperatures are rising for now. I question whether this is outside the norm for the planet. The aforementioned planet has existed for billions of years and we have only been able to measure the past 400000 or so. Actually, how can any temperature be described as 'normal' for a planet that periodically experiences rapid cooling and then rapid heating? As the graph showed, we are currently at or near the apex of one of those periods of heating and it is impossible to discern our impact upon that until it is over, or until it continues for longer than usual, as the case may be. Unfortunately, as these trends can last for thousands of years, you and I will certainly be dead by the time either outcome becomes apparent.
My main argument is close to yours concerning local trends not being indicative of global trends. If you replace area with time, you end up with the same basic principle, but on a larger scale. For all we know, the earth could heat up to almost inhospitable temperatures periodically, but if those periods are longer than 400000 years then we could not as yet know. I am not saying this happens, per my theory that would be impossible to know, I am simply stating that it is foolish to make assumptions on the World's climate trends based on evidence from less than a tenth of a percent of its existence.
Not really.
That is just a rushed and unsupported refutation.
You're thinking about it in the wrong way. It's thermal expansion that's causing sea surface levels to rise. Because water is more dense than ice, it has more thermal expansivity; that is, it's volume is increasing as temperatures increase.
Beyond a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius, how much can it expand by?
There was a recent heatwave in Pakistan (over 51 degrees celsius or 124 degrees Fahrenheit) that emerged within the Asian warming trend.
Coming from the man who says local trends are not indicative of global ones?
It killed hundreds of.
Of what?
Don't leave it to me.
Why not? I am certainly not going to rely on other people's opinions, why would you?
The website you cited through the graph is almsot singularly geared towards debunking the claims skeptics "like you" make.
As I said before, they have misinterpreted their own evidence. Besides, it is more useful to look at the evidence and make your own conclusion than just recycling someone else's. Even if your conclusion is wrong, because in a debate, only one side can be right, the other half have to be wrong. If everybody just believed everything they read, then we would all be incarcerated in asylums, presumably run by other lunatics, due to the sheer number of conflicting opinions we would have to agree with. My point is that you up your own mind before you join a side, not the other way round.
If everything you say is true and it is becoming increasingly possible that it is, then there is absolutely no reason for me to get up in the morning, go to school, eat or effect any other of my daily machinations, because we are all going to die or live in trees, eating beans. I for one refuse to accept that.
(It's amazing how much one can type when it is twelve a.m and one is running on a mix of stubbornness and caffeine!)
You're missing my point. And until I learn how to use the English language more efficiently or you just get it, I'll just have to let it go. So, nevermind.
Again spelt with a "c".
I'm in the US, where it's "check" and not "cheque". Your "sceptical" is my "skeptical".
I am sceptical of the notion that temperatures have risen above the 'normal' range.
We've passed the normal range.
I suppose that the same abnormalities occurring simultaneously on two separate continents is your idea of a 'variability in the trend'?
Yes: some. I forget the name of the article, but Anastasios Tsonis recently published a paper describing variability or oscillations "riding" on the generally increasing temperature trend currently being observed and measured.
As the graph showed, we are currently at or near the apex of one of those periods of heating and it is impossible to discern our impact upon that until it is over, or until it continues for longer than usual, as the case may be.
We've departed from the constrained natural glacial and interglacial periods since the 1900s, which is one of the reasons why many people are concerned. Human activity is creating an imbalance. See IPCC discussion-FAQ. Start at around page 112, but 112-116 is a good and informative read about some of the comparative differences of the observed and measured component parts of past cycles and the present trend.
That is just a rushed and unsupported refutation.
It's quid pro quo; I don't recall your assertion being supported.
Beyond a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius, how much can it expand by?
It depends on the amount of water present. 4 degrees Celsius is where water is at its most dense, not where water reaches or nears its optimal volume. But even then I'm not really sure.
Coming from the man who says local trends are not indicative of global ones?
I never said that. I said that outliers like abnormally cold weather in New York don't refute the global warming trend.
Why not? I am certainly not going to rely on other people's opinions, why would you?
Because the articles themselves present the sources of their information, which are easily downloadable or otherwise viewable to any reader. I don't have to rely on simple opinion, I can go to the data and so can you by reading the relevant articles.
fore, they have misinterpreted their own evidence.
Not buying it. The graph is the collation of two Vostok measurements and described in relevant publications linked to the graph in the CO2 Lags Temperature article. Either both Vostok descriptions and the Lag article are wrong and you are right that all three parties misinterpreted the data, or you are wrong. You can see why I would be hesitant to accept your claim here.
My point is that you up your own mind before you join a side, not the other way round.
Which is something I did do. I didn't know anything about climate, climate change or global warming. When it was brought up in a discussion about three years ago with one of my Pakistani friends and I didn't have anything meaningful to contribute (I hate that), I decided to study it. That's why I can now throw .pdf and .txt data files at you, and point you to places of interest, because I've read them myself and have come to accept the data.
I for one refuse to accept that.
Then refuse to accept it and do something about it. It's not inevitable that shit will hit the proverbial fan. That's why many people are stressing need and pushing for new legislation, and calling for responsible living with better energy alternatives.
I'm in the US, where it's "check" and not "cheque". Your "sceptical" is my "skeptical".
Here check and cheque are two separate words, regardless, k is a vulgar letter and should be used sparingly, hence the use of the softer c.
We've passed the normal range.
Define normal for a planet which periodically experiences temperature fluctuations.
It's quid pro quo; I don't recall your assertion being supported.
Link below.
Yes: some. I forget the name of the article, but Anastasios Tsonis recently published a paper describing variability or oscillations "riding" on the generally increasing temperature trend currently being observed and measured.
I shall remain sceptical until I have read the article.
It depends on the amount of water present. 4 degrees Celsius is where water is at its most dense, not where water reaches or nears its optimal volume. But even then I'm not really sure.
Larger volumes require a greater amount of heat energy, not a higher temperature. I am aware of the significance of the 4 degree mark, which is why I mentioned it.
I never said that. I said that outliers like abnormally cold weather in New York don't refute the global warming trend.
Neither does abnormally hot weather in Pakistan of Asia support it.
Because the articles themselves present the sources of their information, which are easily downloadable or otherwise viewable to any reader. I don't have to rely on simple opinion, I can go to the data and so can you by reading the relevant articles.
I am aware of that, but the evidence is not biased, whereas the articles are. As what evidence suggests is always disputed, it is easier to understand the concepts and then view the evidence personally, rather than just accept somebody's word for it.
Not buying it. The graph is the collation of two Vostok measurements and described in relevant publications linked to the graph in the CO2 Lags Temperature article. Either both Vostok descriptions and the Lag article are wrong and you are right that all three parties misinterpreted the data, or you are wrong. You can see why I would be hesitant to accept your claim here.
Then here we will have to disagree.
Which is something I did do. I didn't know anything about climate, climate change or global warming. When it was brought up in a discussion about three years ago with one of my Pakistani friends and I didn't have anything meaningful to contribute (I hate that), I decided to study it. That's why I can now throw .pdf and .txt data files at you, and point you to places of interest, because I've read them myself and have come to accept the data.
Now that you have a side, you do not have to just accept everything that side says. I, for example am a conservative, capitalistic opponent of the man-made global warming theory, but advocate the switch to renewable power, as opposed to those who refute peak oil (which is ridiculous, 1 from 100 is less than 100, so peak oil is a mathematical inevitability).
Then refuse to accept it and do something about it. It's not inevitable that shit will hit the proverbial fan. That's why many people are stressing need and pushing for new legislation, and calling for responsible living with better energy alternatives.
We do need alternative energy, but, true or not, G.W is the wrong way to push it forward. We live in a capitalist society, if there is money to be made in alternative energy then it shall be done. Oil will run out, but the bloated felines, when they recognise this, will devote their extensive resources to the project. Besides, if it comes down to death or a life eating beans made out of recycled cardboard and driving to the pathetic corrugated iron villages in an electric car powered by flatulence, I know where I stand...in one of the mass graves filled with suicidal industrialists. The only other option is a hydrogen economy preceded by a nuclear period of 30-40 years, while necessary infrastructure. This is one of my projected sources of income, so I naturally have a predisposition towards it. Wind and solar are weak and ineffectual, whereas H.E.P is excellent for about 20-30% of world power, but beyond that will only devour increasingly valuable agricultural land.
The information suggests that analysis and measurement of ice caps is important, and their disappearing has consequences. But, the article does not suggest that the ice caps are the root of coming catastrophe. Glacial loss is the symptom of the cancer, not the cancer itself.
Larger volumes require a greater amount of heat energy, not a higher temperature.
The point is that sea levels are rising because of thermal expansion, not glacial loss.
Neither does abnormally hot weather in Pakistan of Asia support it.
While both are outliers, one was at the apex of an already present Asian warming trend and the others (NY and Europe) punctuated a global trend, which continued. I don't view them as analogous. That the trend continued suggests that the latter cannot be inferred as evidence against that trend and the former directly corresponded with a trend and can be used to affirm that trend.
As what evidence suggests is always disputed, it is easier to understand the concepts and then view the evidence personally, rather than just accept somebody's word for it.
Which is why I'm pointing you to the articles, with the explicit caveat that the data is linked in them. Go to the articles, click on the respected citations and then you can compare the articles with the sources of their interpretations and see if they coincide.
I agree with you apart from there being no wholes in the ozone layer, there are. The government, and these new "environmentalist" industries that teach how to lower carbon emmissions etc are definately making money from this scheme. I love your simplistic solution to reducing carbon emmissions, Are rainforests are being cut down massively and this needs to stop.
Global warming is either caused by the sun (or some other natural cause) or by humans.
If it is cause by the sun (or some other natural cause) there is nothing we can do about it except wait it out.
If it is caused by humans, we either reduce the human population significantly (since humans are the cause) or we establish crippling economic solutions. No one wants to do either one of those things.
If we do nothing, eventually the natural cycle will reverse itself, or enough humans will die out to reverse human meddling, or both.
If you bothered to read any legitimate source about the causes of global warming, you would know that both humans and natural forces are contributing, but humans are responsible for the greater portion.
With early abortions, it's just a clump of cells, so it doesn't matter.
With late abortions, the evil of murder has to be weighed against the evil of bringing unwanted children into the world. That judgment is... above my pay grade. I think the laws we currently have are reasonable.
I can't believe you're seriously arguing that death is not bad. Next you'll be arguing that forward is backward.
A clump of cells to you. There are plenty of other people that would disagree.
If death is so bad, then why is it that we can't live without it? Could you imagine what the world would be like if no one and nothing died? And on top of that, do you really want to keep death row inmates on death row for decades instead of expediting the process?
"There are plenty of other people that would disagree."
But their disagreement would be based on illogical religious faith and therefore irrelevant.
"If death is so bad..."
Yes death is necessary. That doesn't change the fact that it's bad. If something is bad it should be avoided unless it will prevent something worse. It's best for people to die of old age (in most cases).
Do you want to die Joe? I assume the answer is no. Why not apply that answer from another's point of view?
It's not a fetus until 11 weeks. I'm talking about a fertilized egg, two cells, four, eight. Once you get beyond a clump of cells things get trickier. What reason could there be for objecting to the destruction of a clump of cells other than religion?
And I'm not "labeling" death as bad. First, death itself is not the problem, it's the suffering that tends to accompany it. Second, nobody gets to choose what's bad and what's good, those things are fundamental to the human condition.
"it is what it is and that's the way it is."
We can change things. We can stop global warming if we cooperate. We can stop people from dying before their time.
You didn't answer my second question: Why not apply that point of view from another's perspective?
The problem is that no matter what course of action you take, there will always be a group of people who will be affected by it negatively. There isn't a "one solution fits all" type of solution. Right now people are not so concerned about global warming, especially because of the hacked e-mails and the new data coming out that seems to contradict global warming. You have to let things get bad enough to mobilize people, otherwise you're just beating your head against the wall.
"there will always be a group of people who will be affected by it negatively"
Yes, but there are some actions that will result in much less harm overall. Ignoring the problem isn't one of them.
"Right now people are not so concerned about global warming"
I don't know about that. 53% say it's least a somewhat serious problem. (link)
The hacked e-mails revealed no conspiracy. There's no data that contradicts global warming. The fact that people believe these things just shows how effective the right-wing spin machine is at deceiving people.
"You have to let things get bad enough to mobilize people"
That may be true, but this debate is about what should be done, not what will be done.
If people are out of work and can't afford food or housing, they are either going to die anyway or have a crappier quality of life than if we just let things be.
""If people are out of work and can't afford food or housing, they are either going to die anyway or have a crappier quality of life than if we just let things be.""
I hate explaining the obvious, but here is how it looks.
We do nothing:
Major ecosystems collapse from keystone species vanishing. Flooding occurs because ocean levels rise. We survive but there is anarchy at best, crippling food shortages and lack of power at worst from backlash.
We let the market drive how we respond:
Response is slow, but mitigates the effects somewhat. Major pollution is allowed but it is simply costly due to carbon credits. Most policies taken are those that feel good, not the entirety of what we can do to fix things. The damage we cause is irreversible to our environment but not as bad as if we do nothing, or at least, the damage comes more slowly.
We enact policy changes:
We save many important species and ecosystems, but the cost of living increases greatly and drives many into a struggle to live, or just poverty. This causes increases in violence, crime, and so on, but the damage it mostly mitigated until we have ways to decrease cost of living and live cleanly too.
We enact policy changes and use the market to drive development of cleaner living:
The way we live changes into a more efficient model, costs may start higher, and many companies go bankrupt or adapt to this type of model. Damage is already done to our environment but is being reversed or made less severe.
So let things deteriorate! The faster the better. The faster it deteriorates the more people that die at a quicker rate and the whole system stabilizes a lot quicker. The faster it deteriorates the sooner we can get back on track. If you try to do something, you'll just prolong the inevitable. If the Polar Bears die, no big deal, that just means that there wont be any more excuses for not drilling in Alaska ;)
"Capitalism is not a virus, it is a Godsend.--------------------"
You say that, yet some of the greatest capitalists in the world are campaigning against policies that would hurt their income and business, threatening our continued survival in spite of a consensus warning by our best experts in the subject.
Hence my statement.
Capitalism and lobbying may wind up killing us, or plunging us into a major collapse.
Well Global Warming has been going on for thousands of years. Humans are the reason why its sped up so quickly. Killing people wont do anything, That would be just an easy way for genocide of a race or country ect. Like on a previous comment I have posted, why not spend the money to create Green Jobs. Its a win-win situation, more jobs for the American people (or whoever is capable of the technology needed) and a cleaner, healthier Earth. If the Earth reverses itself, and we go into another Ice Age, that can reverse the Human development to at least a few hundred years, our farms would die, and the world would loose allot of money. What you said is only a prediction, but based on my experiences, Reality is far more worse. The best thing we humans can do, is to create Green Jobs, and cut down on the things that damage the earth, once we get that done, only Mother Nature can decide our fate.
Spend money to create jobs? This means that there's no money in green technologies. If there was money to be made from green technologies, then we wouldn't have to spend money to create those jobs. Do you think we spent money to create jobs based on fossil fuels? No. There was a need and fossil fuels met those needs and market forces created those jobs.
If you honestly believe (deep down in your heart) that people are the cause of global warming, then the solution is simple. Get rid of some of the people.
If you think the problem is the number of cars, good luck in trying to get rid of them.
And if you think factories are the problem, I wouldn't want to be you when people start losing their jobs and they realize it's all because of you. ;)
I never said humans were THE problem. Global Warming is a natural state. Human lifestyle such as factories ect are speeding up the process much faster than how it is supposed to be be. The Global Warming issue to me is a loose-loose situation now. We do nothing and continue our daily lives doing the things we do normally, we make it worse for the Earth. We do something we put our self's at risk, mainly job wise. Getting rid of cars isn't a solution, there's too many of them :0 - The first step we humans need to get done is to address the issue, once we get that then we may think of solutions - but until then we mind as well watch paint dry..
Well watching paint dry is bad idea, its best to take precautions before its too late. Our life/ planet is not a drawing, we can't edit it if you didn't like your day ect.. because soon enough its going to bite us in the ass and we will all be doomed, if we cant come to a solution then at least we have a chance to try..
The problem is that no matter what course of action you take, there will always be a group of people who will be affected by it negatively. There isn't a "one solution fits all" type of solution. Right now people are not so concerned about global warming, especially because of the hacked e-mails and the new data coming out that seems to contradict global warming. You have to let things get bad enough to mobilize people, otherwise you're just beating your head against the wall.
I 100% believe what you say, sucks too because its the best we can do, to please all people. I'm just afraid that by the time everyone is on the same page it will be too late. Until then, if it happens - which I doubt - We are all screwed.
Your right, I would be surprised. People now a' days are too stupid to rely on themselves to survive. People freak out when their phone dies or internet service is gone. Yup..I would be surprised.
Ah that's just hyperbole. The entire world isn't going under water. BTW, my doctor said that he's going to have to replace my eye balls because I'm wearing them out every time I come to this site and roll my eyes ;)
so what you are saying is that the big oil companies started with gas products or gas and other fossil fuels just come from the earth "ready to use" wow.
there was research done to make and how to extract the fossils we use everyday. this came at a price=green energy will start to have the same effect, does this train of thought make sense to you?
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the private sector developed that technology (fossile fuels). I'm saying that the government should not spend money to develop green technology (it should be done by the private sector).
i agree with you to an extent but if government doesn't push for the private sector to go in that direction they will continue to just do more of the same. the private sector should not be held responsible for creating something we need all by them selves. the governments should be giving incentives toward that direction.
"Create jobs" is a fallacy. When you spend more money providing the same service, that will in fact shrink your GDP. You can produce less goods from your available labor pool since you used more of it to produce a single good.
From every possible metric it is a step backwards. It's not a win win. Not at all.
If we do nothing, eventually the natural cycle will reverse itself, or enough humans will die out to reverse human meddling, or both.
That statement might be correct, considering it really happens. However, the consequences of this global warming are exactly about us being ruining the balancing elements in the planet. If these balancing elements vanish, then that's only possible to happen again in a very long time, way after we have all fried and been forgoten. And that is IF it ever happens again, considering we are moving towards a tipping point, if we haven't reached it yet.
You argument is a bit like saying "Oh there's a high speed train coming! Well, I'll just sit here on the tracks and wait to see if it can brake in time to not trample me."
Actually, it's more like, "Hmmm..., there's a high wall on my left and an even higher wall on my right and there's a high speed bullet train coming. Maybe if I just lay down here, it will pass right over me without causing me much harm..., because there's not much else I can do about it." ;)
Maybe if you bothered to read other comments, you can actually comment something useful, instead of ranting and making yourself look like an idiot. Maybe leaving the source, if you used one, instead of using your anger toward the government.
Also, whether you think global warming is real or not, we are running out of fossil fuels and having an economy based off of a limited substance is just plain stupid.
It is easy to criticise the economy being based on oil, but in the world's industries' formative years, there really was no other alternative. People forget that civil liberty, equality and human rights are only possible because of oil. The way I see it, before fossil fuels, 90% of the world's population were impoverished, disease-ridden peasants. It's either capitalism or feudalism I'm afraid.
There is no scientific evidence for global warming. The scientists at East Anglia "threw it away." Also, throughout history, when there has been a small climate change, it has been resolved through nature. I think we should continue living our normal lives instead of buying more expensive "green" cars, paying increased taxes, and ruining the economy!
global warming is a mith. Did you know that a long time ago Antarctica was a rain forest, the globe is cooling if anything. Its been getting colder. SO if it is real then it would be good.
Most scientists show favor for the earth not falling apart due..to man..well maybe a nuclear war that will tip things for sure..but not car's driving down the road..I'm mean Gore the biggest supporter his house uses more energy then some small communities..hmmm believe a guy who spends more then the average person..makes sense...