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.
Do you believe Global Warming exists?
There are many scientists who have spent years researchig and have thousands of pieces of data to support the theory of Global Warming. They believe that increased levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are a direct result of human activity and that drastic measures must be taken soon to hopefully reduce our effect on the atmosphere.
Other scientists on the otherhand, believe that the warming of the atmosphere is a natural occurence that has occurred several times throughout history. They do not believe that there is any reason to be worried and that taking immediate action would be a waste of time, resources, and money.
What do you think?
Give you opinion with two reasons to support your thoughts.
I believe this debate is over-inflated. I have an moderate view, but global warming does exist. From some of my other posts, the Earth experiences warming and cooling periodically (Ice Ages). Humans probably have an effect that catalyzes the process. Does it cause natural disasters? Maybe. Maybe not. Can it be reversed? We probably don't have the technology to do it, and the Earth is known to follow a cyle of climates. Nevertheless, global warming is occuring and cannot be denied, and we should all be trying to do something about its adverse effects.
I agreed with everything upto cannot be denied. Then you sounded like an absolutist. I disagree that it cannot be denied, as its obvious some here deny it. Also, telling people what to do directly is never a very good choice. Encouraging actions that would be "mandatory" persay is a good idea, but never an order. This is more so a suggestion for reorganization of your point than anything. Thanks for the Moderacy! Its actually greatly appreciated.
It is true the Earth used to have cycles of global warming and then a recurring ice age, but that was before humans walked the earth. Just in the last 100 yrs (give or take a few), man has polluted the Earth to a critical stage. Note that all this started around the time of the "Industrial Revolution". Man learned how to manipulate the environment and use it's resouces.
Along came the automobile. The average car puts out about 6 TONS of pollution per year. Multiply that by all the cars on the road and add industry pollution, etc.
Sure, the earth used to recover, but that was before man. It has no chance to recover if we just keep adding to it.
If you don't believe this is real, go to the NASA website. The graphs show the rise in pollution that started just about the time man started walking the face of this Earth. Perhaps the first thing that man learned how to do is use fire, and they used it ti burn wood for cooking and heating.
The EARTH has never been the same since. Until we start using alternative fuel sources ie: wind, solar, biofuels, etc. the situation will only get worse.
There is no"cycle" anymore. Man put a stop to that. We have known about solar and wind power for many many years. The oil companies don't WANT us to develop biofuels.
Global warming does exists and it's been going on since the history of life. It is a natural event and there's no proof our "green actions" will make any difference.
you can argue the relative effect humans have compared to other sources (volcanoes, fires, etc) and what the outcomes of global warming will be, but unless there are equally impactful countervailing human activities you cannot logically argue that humans have no warming impact.
Neither is saying the earth is heating up because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.
either humans haven't increased CO2 and methane, which they have
Correct. Do you know by what amount?
the greenhouse effect doesn't exist, which it does
The greenhouse effect is nothing more than a theory. The way to see through it is to use logic:
There is more CO2 in the atmosphere and the earth is heating up. This must mean that CO2 is causing the earth to heat up. But how? (Insert made up theory here).
If this logic is true, then take note; we all breathe and we all die. Therefore breathing causes death. (Insert made up theory here explaining why that is so).
you've just proved yourself stupid to anyone who's gotten into a car that is warmer inside than the outside temperature. You can argue the relative amount of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere and how much of it relates to humans, but the greenhouse effect has been quantifiable scientific fact since the late 1800's.
So how much of the atmosphere is now made up of CO2 compared to 100 years ago? (I know the answer by the way, I want to see if you do to).
you've just proved yourself stupid to anyone who's gotten into a car that is warmer inside than the outside temperature.
Is that personal attack your equivalent of saying "you're stupid because you disagree with me?"
You can argue the relative amount of greenhouse effect in the atmosphere and how much of it relates to humans, but the greenhouse effect has been quantifiable scientific fact since the late 1800's.
And yet, the earth hasn't quite heated up at the predicted rate. Why is this?
And hang on, wasn't it mid to late 20th century scientists were worrying over an Ice age? Why has it all of a sudden switched?
I'm not childish enough to resort to personal attacks, so I'll just let you fire away. I'm only looking for actual evidence.
you've provided 0 sources, haven't viewed (or understood) sources provided, and are not willing to look anything up - do you feel you are helpful to your position??
once you can debate your way past wikipedia then come back
I know this is coming off more crass than I usually try to be here, but it's been a long day and arguing with people who think that the feeding, manufacturing, housing and transportation activities of nearly 7 billion people has absolutely 0 impact isn't getting my full consideration at the moment.
can you read a graph?? I linked to a graph of the CO2 concentrations for about the last 650,000 years (along with temperature correlations)
I can, as well as from other sources. There seems to be a terribly minute amount of CO2. Do you know what the main cause of CO2 is? (Oh, I know the answer by the way, I'm just allowing you to google it).
can you at least spend the 2 seconds to google that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
I don't give a damn about Global cooling, I was questioning why we've suddenly switched from Anthropogenic global cooling lies to Anthropogenic global warming lies.
you've provided 0 sources
Instead, I've used a little thing called logic and reason. Also, Google 'Climategate.'
haven't viewed (or understood) sources provided
First of all, you have no possible way of knowing that, only what you assume. Second, as a matter of fact I look at all sources given to me so that I be skeptical of both sides.
and are not willing to look anything up
You need to realize that I know the answers to the questions I ask you as I'm not asking out of skepticism. I just want to see if you know too (which in some cases you don't).
once you can debate your way past wikipedia then come back
So... is whatever wikipedia says 100 percent true?
I know this is coming off more crass than I usually try to be here, but it's been a long day and arguing with people who think that the feeding, manufacturing, housing and transportation activities of nearly 7 billion people has absolutely 0 impact isn't getting my full consideration at the moment
I do believe that looking after a population of nearly 7 billion is having an effect. I don't believe it's having an effect on the global temperature.
, and are not willing to look anything up - do you feel you are helpful to your position??
Then you should edit it to show that you are right and see how long that lasts.
You are not supposed to just believe what you read on wikipedia, rather, you should read the supporting information (more than 35 sources on the global cooling article and 140 on global warming); if there is reputable information that isn't listed, you should contribute it (though I don't think they'll accept your suggestion to just google climategate.)
This all comes from the assumption that the science behind all of those and the Greenhouse effect to begin with are true. Also, It is generally accepted that Humans do not directly impact global warming, merely catalyze the natural "forces," for a lack of a better word, of Global warming that exist in the Natural Cycles of the World. Would you not agree with this?
This all comes from the assumption that the science behind all of those and the Greenhouse effect to begin with are true. Also, It is generally accepted that Humans do not directly impact global warming, merely catalyze the natural "forces," for a lack of a better word, of Global warming that exist in the Natural Cycles of the World. Would you not agree with this?
It does in fact exist. We have clear examples of it happening on Mars, Venus, and possibly Mercury. Global warming on Earth also exists, but it's effect is incredibly low when compared to other natural events the Earth has gone through. Take Yellowstone park for example. It is a basin that, during the last ice age, was significantly compressed by billions of tones of ice. Where is that ice today? All melted. That was a very significant environmental change, but as it turns out, life on earth did in fact continue. There was no cataclysmic ecological meltdown Al Gore would have you believe. And it certainly wasn't caused by human activity.
Possibly hundreds of millions. My point is that we made no contribution to prehistoric climates, yet they went thought periods of extreme change. Obviously the earth is naturally capable of "climate change" regardless of what humans do to it.
What we have done to it as far as carbon emissions go is fairly minuscule. Even if we continued to consume (and expand) fossil fuels as we are now, it would take over a century for catastrophic (humanity ending) events to occur. By then our oil supply will be long gone, and coal will become increasingly hard to mine and refine, thus making alternative sources a more feasible source. Until fossil fuels become economically unfeasible, I see no reason to jump the gun with less effective "green" energy.
"What we have done to it as far as carbon emissions go is fairly minuscule"
humans release 4.3×10^15 grams of carbon into the atmosphere per year. allow me to expand that for you.
4,300,000,000,000,000 grams. of a gas.
Earths entire atmosphere has 1,950,000,000,000,000,000 g total.
people alone are contributing 0.002% of the carbon of THE ENTIRE ATMOSPHERE OF EARTH, EVERY YEAR
if you think that 0.002% is a small amount, consider the fact that carbon dioxide only makes up .04% of air on earth, and is still more than enough to nourish plants.
Whether or not the effects of Climate Change are real, the course of action is a rational one in favour of our general welfare as a species. If Climate Change is accurately described by scientists (whom I generally agree with, as opposed to political lobbyists and interest groups who permeate the media), then taking action to reduce our emissions of Carbon Dioxide and Methane is in our interests for the future stability of our ecosystem, and further action to reduce the effects of Climate Change on our environment are warranted. If the calculations of all these scientists are wrong, we still have a cleaner environment and would have saved many species which would have gone extinct.
The argument of people not in favour of acting on this theory are basically divided between complacency (I don't want to change my habits to have a more efficient and cleaner lifestyle) and fear (I would rather believe in a conspiracy than accept that there is looming danger in our misdeeds).
There is no good reason to not act on this information. We have everything to gain from it, and little to lose.
Global Warming does exist, but I don't think that we will be significantly affected by it any time soon. Earth naturally warms up on its own. but we do affect it significantly...
very weak argument. its common knowledge that is tends to be a bit hot by the equator. As for natural disasters, the earthquakes that struck haiti and the tsunami that hit sri lanka, have nothing to do with global warming. As far as I've noticed, greenland is still afloat, along with antarctica.
Our "lovely earth" was created with natural disasters, FYI. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and hurricanes shaped the terrain of the earth. All you have stated is "I have observed that earth is developing just as it has since its beginning"
Sure, the earth is warming up but not because of any CO2 we release into the atmosphere.
As you know the earth heats up and cools down, and right now it's actually meant to be heating up so whether or not we continue releasing CO2 emissions it's not going to make a difference.
Are you suggesting the massive amounts of co2 that have been pumped into the atmosphere for the last 110 years hasn't had an effect? I suppose it could cause more vegetation, however if my memory serves me well the rain forests are decreasing in size and have been for awhile. Perhaps plankton has increased? Some type of biological growth has had to of occurred with in the last 110 years to offset the increased co2 levels if those increased co2 levels have had no effect on the insulating and reflective/refractive properties of the atmosphere. or Maybe most of it ends up as acid rain?
I think it is more likely that the earth is experiencing a similar thing as what happened to the ozone(different chemicals, different results). I would need to do research though that i don't feel like doing to really make a good argument.
Well we don't actually know whether or not CO2 is damaging the environment. I believe rain forests are decreasing due to them being cut down, but I have not seen one bit of evidence that proves there is a link between CO2 and climate change.
I swear you think I don't know what the greenhouse effect is.
As far as we know, it could be entirely made up.
It follows this sort of logic:
Do we all breathe?
Yes.
Do we all die?
Yes.
This means that breathing causes death.
Why's that?
Insert made up theory here.
The earth is meant to be heating up as you well know, and there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere before.
If CO2 causes the earth to heat up, why is it that on numerous occasions the earth has continued to cool whilst more CO2 is released into the atmosphere?
Its a complex system, the general trend is what matters. We're not in a glacial period and if we were in a transition stage from a interglacial period to a glacial period wouldn't the earth be cooling over a long time period(100 years)? So the heating of the earth isn't due to one of the well known natural processes. Over the last hundred years the earth's temperature has increased.
We are currently Pumping 150 times more co2 then what is naturally released by current volcanos. We also know that high temperatures and high C02 levels are correlated by comparing various testing methods such as tree rings and ice cores. Also after we started to increase the level of c02 we experienced a increase in temperature. Thus we can infer that Co2 levels and temperature are correlated. We can prove causation by taking a simplified microcosm of the world, and increasing the Co2 levels and only the CO2 levels. We have done this and we know that higher Co2 levels causes Higher Temperatures. we know that Co2 acts as an amplifier of temperature, actually exponentially so(since the hotter the surface the more Co2 that is released from the oceans and such). The only ways for Higher levels of Co2 to not cause an appreciable change in Temperature is if the Co2 increase are not high enough or if there are other processes that counter the effects of Co2. Do you have any ideas what these countering processes might be?
Its a complex system, the general trend is what matters. We're not in a glacial period and if we were in a transition stage from an interglacial period to a glacial period wouldn't the earth be cooling over a long time period(100 years)?
No actually, you discounted the fact that the earth heated up, was at one of its hottest (yes, I'm referring to the middle ages) cooled down again, and is actually meant to be heating up now.
Over the last hundred years the earth's temperature has increased.
Like it should.
We are currently Pumping 150 times more co2 then what is naturally released by current volcanos. Where? At which rate?
We also know that high temperatures and high C02 levels are correlated by comparing various testing methods such as tree rings and ice cores. Which kind of trees? Where, and how many?
Also after we started to increase the level of c02 we experienced a increase in temperature. Thus we can infer that Co2 levels and temperature are correlated.
No, you can't. That doesn't mean anything.
We can prove causation by taking a simplified microcosm of the world, and increasing the Co2 levels and only the CO2 levels. We have done this and we know that higher Co2 levels causes Higher Temperatures. Explain more on this one.
The only ways for Higher levels of Co2 to not cause an appreciable change in Temperature is if the Co2 increase are not high enough or if there are other processes that counter the effects of Co2. Do you have any ideas what these countering processes might be?
So are you saying 100 years is not a long enough time frame to capture the general trend of global climate change?
Also what is your source for how the earth is supposed to be heating up now?
So long as the trees are a representative sample though out time they constituent good evidence. The article I linked to indicated other methods as well. I'm not going to wade though a bunch of peer reviewed reports(sure I have faith in the process) for the specifics when All I care about is the outcome.
Are you saying that if A consistently happens with B, the I can not guess that A and B are probably related?
I assumed finding an experiment online that had a double paneled transparent enclosure which had the intermediate area between the panels filled with a variable amount of CO2 with a black bottom to the enclosure and a infrared reader inside the enclosure to be easier to find. (although it may be more accurate to have the co2 distributed though out the container)Assumptions before I quickly get off line and focus on tests for a week apparently trips me up. It not happening before does seem unlikely though. I know a literal green house works as a very rough estimate of such a thing, unfortunately there are too many confounding variables for it to be conclusive. I could use physics and such to try to find how the index of refraction and the angle when light passes though for various wavelengths change with co2 density. It would basically be a thick or thin lens problem, of variable N(index of refraction), black bottom would absorb light and remitted longer wavelength infrared, you would just need to find the critical angle for the longer wavelength and density. I could do most of the math but i'm not sure how the index of refraction is related to co2 density. It would be more accurate to use air rather then pure co2 as well. i'm starting to ramble, ahh...thats why everyone wants to kill the engineering student.
There would have to be an increase in vegetation for it to be plants, and roughly 2/3 of the earth is covered by water.
I gathered the conclusion with the information I obtained.
Are you saying that if A consistently happens with B, the I can not guess that A and B are probably related?
Precisely. One cannot immediately believe that A and B are directly related if it means radical change in the way we live our lives. What is not always taken account of is that B might happen due to A, not the other way round. It could also be A is related to C which is related to B or any amount of letters you want between. We can therefore find out what C could possibly be, and how demanding it is.
I assumed finding an experiment online that had a double paneled transparent enclosure which had the intermediate area between the panels filled with a variable amount of CO2 with a black bottom to the enclosure and a infrared reader inside the enclosure to be easier to find. (although it may be more accurate to have the co2 distributed though out the container)Assumptions before I quickly get off line and focus on tests for a week apparently trips me up.
So the experiment was essentially a greenhouse containing CO2? Made of different materials than the earth's atmosphere?
I could use physics and such to try to find how the index of refraction and the angle when light passes though for various wavelengths change with co2 density.
The angle of light passing through the atmosphere is TOTALLY irrelevant if all we need to know how it affects the temperature.
With that you would have to also look at it's refractive index on Ozone, Nitrogen and oxygen, as well as CO2's molecular mass compared to the other elements and compounds in the atmosphere to find where exactly the light goes through the CO2 and 'supposedly' serves as a greenhouse.
It would basically be a thick or thin lens problem, of variable N(index of refraction), black bottom would absorb light and remitted longer wavelength infrared, you would just need to find the critical angle for the longer wavelength and density. I could do most of the math but i'm not sure how the index of refraction is related to co2 density
You don't need to know the precise refractive index; it's common knowledge that CO2 has a far smaller refractive index than that of glass especially for a greenhouse.
It would be more accurate to use air rather then pure co2 as well.
But that most likely won't be used as it would falsify the greenhouse effect.
i'm starting to ramble,
No you aren't.
ahh...thats why everyone wants to kill the engineering student.
100 yrs was an assumption, based on how anything shorter then that would be picking up seasonal changes or likely not have good support lines(to borrow a line from the chartists :) ). What would you suggest is the adequate time frame and why?
your last link is broken and the edf disagrees with your position. The human record link only evidences that the middle ages were warm. The first link states that we are not in a ice age in the colloquial sense but are in a different sense among other things and gives a focus on greenhouse gases as a probable cause of climate change. The remaining one has some arguments I currently don't have the time to analyze due to thanksgiving and finals coming up. By the title of a few of them I could guess they are concerned more with the economics of climate change then with the science of it. Which one do you believe has the most scientific evidence and valid logic?
I didn't say you could believe that A and B are directly related, but that you could guess that A and B are probably related, either directly, indirectly. Weather it means radical change or not is irrelevant. Also guessing that A and B are related leaves their relation indeterminate, meaning you do not assume that A causes B, B causes A, A and B are related by C, etc; you simply see evidence that they are related in some way. For example, at different times of the day the tide changes; you could guess that those are related.
Its a little more complicated then just a greenhouse, there are quite a few variables one would have to account for. The angle of light passing though is relevant because of snell's law. If there is total internal refraction then more energy stays with the earth then what leaves it resulting in heat storage, aka, a rise in temperature.
All I would need for a simple theoretical model is a function of the index of refraction of air with co2 as the independent variable.
"falsify the greenhouse effect", The greenhouse effect is a essential function of this planet that allows for life. http://geooptics.com/?page_id=148.
100 yrs was an assumption, based on how anything shorter then that would be picking up seasonal changes or likely not have good support lines(to borrow a line from the chartists :) ). What would you suggest is the adequate time frame and why?
your last link is broken and the edf disagrees with your position. The human record link only evidences that the middle ages were warm. The first link states that we are not in a ice age in the colloquial sense but are in a different sense among other things and gives a focus on greenhouse gases as a probable cause of climate change. The remaining one has some arguments I currently don't have the time to analyze due to thanksgiving and finals coming up. By the title of a few of them I could guess they are concerned more with the economics of climate change then with the science of it. Which one do you believe has the most scientific evidence and valid logic?
Oh don't think that's where I got all my information! I couldn't really post up books and seminars but I think you got the general tenor of things.
I guess I couldn't really say which of those was most valid as I obtained the information from more than the internet (as you know most internet sources provide a biased view).
I didn't say you could believe that A and B are directly related, but that you could guess that A and B are probably related, either directly, indirectly. Weather it means radical change or not is irrelevant. Also guessing that A and B are related leaves their relation indeterminate, meaning you do not assume that A causes B, B causes A, A and B are related by C, etc; you simply see evidence that they are related in some way. For example, at different times of the day the tide changes; you could guess that those are related.
Judging by that we still can't assume global warming exists if there is too much debate. You only need a few ounces of of similarities to immediately come to a conclusion that A and B are related, whether directly or indirectly, but sometimes that's just due to a lack of information rather than the confirmation bias.
Its a little more complicated then just a greenhouse, there are quite a few variables one would have to account for. The angle of light passing though is relevant because of snell's law. If there is total internal refraction then more energy stays with the earth then what leaves it resulting in heat storage, aka, a rise in temperature. All I would need for a simple theoretical model is a function of the index of refraction of air with co2 as the independent variable.
Then why is it that even with more CO2 in the air being the only independent variable changed has left the global temperature the same, if not going down?
The debates that still occur is mainly between scientists, environmentalists, vrs politicians and businesses. The scientific community's consensus is that there is the earth is warming and man is the main factor in it. or so says the link to the EDF you posted.
one similarity may be enough, a billion may be too little.
Every graph I have ever seen of global surface atmospheric temperature shows that temperature has increased over the last 100 years, the same period where Co2 emissions increased. A Google image search for graphs of global surface temperature over the last 100 years will provide a plethora of evidence. Granted, Co2 concentration wasn't the only thing that changed during this period but it is one of the largest changes.
in a closed system with the amount of co2 in air as the independent model, so long as increases in Co2 does decrease the value of the critical angle for infrared light and allows high wave lengths to pass through then the only conceivable way for the temperature to decrease of the enclosed black body is if the co2 itself was storing the heat. If that was the case the decrease in temperature would be temporary and we would soon enough see a increase.
The debates that still occur is mainly between scientists, environmentalists, vrs politicians and businesses. The scientific community's consensus is that there is the earth is warming and man is the main factor in it. or so says the link to the EDF you posted.
And as I made perfectly clear A) you'd be surprised at how skeptical the a vast percentage of the Scientific community is to AGW, and B) I believe I stated these aren't the only sources of info.
Every graph I have ever seen of global surface atmospheric temperature shows that temperature has increased over the last 100 years, the same period where Co2 emissions increased.
So have I, but then I have seen a larger comparison which shows the temperature of the earth gradually increasing and cooling with a steady increase in CO2.
in a closed system with the amount of co2 in air as the independent model, so long as increases in Co2 does decrease the value of the critical angle for infrared light
From which preceding value to...?
and allows high wave lengths to pass through then the only conceivable way for the temperature to decrease of the enclosed black body is if the co2 itself was storing the heat.
So what has been the result with different gases and no gases?
How similar was the experiment to the earth? How much water and vegetation was there?
It is just a way for the government to gain more control. Controlled electric meters? How much water I can put in my own fucking toilet? Invasion of privacy.
The earth is warming, I do not deny that. But it is just do to weather patterns. The earths' weather is constantly changing.
The fallacy of Man made global warming is wrong CO2 being the number one gas that is causing it? Yeah right, if anything its going be water vapor.
The whole thing about the water level getting raised in the oceans? Bullshit. Get a glass of water and put ice in it. Come back in a little and the ice would have melted. The water level would be lower or if anything equal to it when the weight of the ice was in the water.
"Controlled electric meters" are specifically for the energy crisis, which is related to but distinct from global warming. The use of fossil fuels, regardless of CO2 output, depletes the supply of fossil fuels.
"if anything its going be water vapor"
could you please explain how H2O would cause a rise in the levels of CO2?
and fyi the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere is on the order of 4,300,000,000,000,000 grams of carbon a year. that is a lot of carbon
"How much water I can put in my own fucking toilet" is specifically for water conservation, which really is not related to global warming at all. That has to do with the difficulty of purifying salt water and the depleting amount of freshwater sources.
"Get a glass of water and put ice in it. Come back in a little and the ice would have melted"
yes, if all of the ice were floating in the ocean, there would be no rise in water levels. However, a large portion of ice is actually on bedrock. When this ice over rock melts, it spills into the ocean. Try putting an ice cube on the lip of a cup of water, then allowing it to melt. You will notice that when the ice melts off of the lip (which serves as the rocks in this analogy), the water level does indeed rise.
I respect anyone who does believe in global warming because as of 2 years ago,so did I. But time and enlightenment has changed my opinion on that. I've come to a conclusion that the whole"going green/global warming thing" is just another way for the government to make more money. The government will find any and everyone to rob Americans of their finances until we are literally"broke". They'll raise our taxes,put out new bills,and get us to spend more money all for the better "advancement" for the country.
is the world heating up? ABSOLUTLEY. but that is not the issue. the issue is whether the human race has severly sped up the increase in temperature on our planet. Here's something you may not have considered: What if the Earth is still returning to its original temperature from before the ice ages? The earth is an iron planet. Iron can heat up pretty quickly, especially when it is less than 100,000 miles from a 15 billion degrees (Fahrenheit) sun. Then the earth froze over, and as it was warming back up, the earth became habitable for life forms. We are in that stage right now. So, yes, the earth is heating up, but only in response to none other than the basic laws of thermodynamics
Most of the iron of the earth is molten and receives most of its energy from the closer nuclear reactions that takes place in it. The sun is necessary to keep the surface of the earth warm, but has little effect on the earths core due to how heat travels from hot to cold and the center of the earth is much hotter then the surface on a sunny day.
Seeing as how we live in an open system, thermodynamics has nothing to do with a global rise in temperature.
The earth will naturally heat up or cool down based on the elliptical orbit of the earth and it's wobble. Humans can add to this affect by pumping tons of green house gases into the atmosphere, cutting down trees which breathe CO^2, killing ocean plankton which breathe CO^2 etc...
Can you prove your logic? You contradicted yourself by saying that the world is "absolutely" heating up. However, I agree with some of your other statements. The Earth has continually gone through periods of warming and cooling (Ice Ages) throughout its histroy. That said, what are you trying to say? That global warming doesn't exist? Didn't you already say yes?
These so called scientists can't predict the weather two weeks out but they can predict the weather years out?
Actually, meteorologists are least likely to believe in human induced global warming. Climatologists on the other hand, who study long term climate patterns, are more likely to accept Global warming contributed by human activity.
The earth is warming, this is undeniable. Whether it was caused by man or not is another issue. Regardless, we shouldn't be pumping poisonous gases in the air, or clear-cutting rain-forests anyway. Treat earth well, and she will treat us well.
