Is Global Warming Happening?
Yes, we need to take action.
Side Score: 223
|
 |
No, it is a natural cycle.
Side Score: 153
|
|
|
|
|
It is certainly happening. We need to accept the evidence for it and act before its too late. The oceans are warming up, and even a few degrees is enough to destroy ecosystems. The coral reefs which reside in shallow water are dieing off and not growing back as a direct consequence of global warming. Most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced. If we fail to act in time, it will not matter how much money we save in doing nothing. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
2
points
It was always happening. ARG. sorry, yeah, makes me angry because people always think before humans, there was no global warming. Anyway, back to the argument. Yes, the oceans are warming up, which will reduce the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which will put out more CO2. If CO2 had a significant effect on global warming, then it's a self reinforcing cycle and we would have been crisp long ago. I do concur that dying coral reefs is quite bad, because it means we're destroying natural resources, it's just that we aren't the ones causing it. Also, 'most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced', come on, that is blatant appeal to authority. Most of the world once thought the world was flat, did that make them right? Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
The earth has gone through cycles of cold and warm throughout its history, but the global warming now is alarming because it is happening quicker and with steeper effects. most of the time i hate appealing to authority because you're right most of the world thought that the earth was flat at one time. I feel that this is different because we have come to the conclusion of global warming on science and evidence, something they didn't have as much as when they thought that the world was flat. also the whole job of a scientist is to study and learn and i feel that must count for something. Even if global warming weren't true would you want to take the risk? the steps we can take to stop global warming such as changing our source of energy have multiple advantages besides saving the earth. We can eliminate our dependence on oil, and we can start the market for renewable energy which once started and demand increased will lower in price and become profitable. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
2
points
Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
The problem is that we are stuck with the misnomer "Global Warming" because it's a nice, neat, media soundbyte. If you follow the science of meteorology at all, the effects on the environment - raising the temperature enough to melt polar ice caps - is accompanied by extreme winter weather... so the 'warming' isn't really evident when looking at 'average' temperatures. But anyone who thinks that the melting of the polar icecaps and the rise in water levels, increase in hurricane intensities, increase of cyclonic activity, tornadoes, earthquakes and extreme weather isn't related to the amount of pollution in our atmosphere? Needs to go retake 9th grade Earth Science. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
Its great to have something to blame everything on.Theres no way to be wrong.If its hot err global warming cold err global warming raining err global warming EARTHQUAKES err Global warming?????You gotta be kidding me.At least look at the other side. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
Yes, Global Warming is happening. According to an estimate, after 10 years from now, people will be using skin protectors and temperature controller devices in their homes. According to me, whatever we do now to reduce or eliminate this effect, we cannot control it. Yes, now it is too late and we are helpless. A group of handful activists cannot eliminate this effect, and the rest are uninterested. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
1
point
Global warming was happening before we got here. It will be here long after. And skin protectors relate to the hole in the ozone and UV radiation, not global warming. We already use temperature controller devices in our homes, it's called air conditioning. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Global warming is happening. According to the United States Environmental Protection agency brochure entitled, Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics, "Scientists have observed a warming trend beginning around the late 1800s. The most rapid warming has occurred in recent decades. Most of this recent warming is very likely the result of human activities." Also according to the US EPA, "Many human activities release “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. The levels of these gases are increasing at a faster rate than at any time in hundreds of thousands of years." The earth really is getting hotter. Stated by the Natural Resources Defense Council's website, "Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history." Fred Singer, a atmospheric physicist and a know global warming skeptic, argures that global warming is not occuring, but Singer is using data from satellites that measure the atmospheric tempurature of the Earth rather that using data that states surface tempuratures of the Earth. This information is found on http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ Side: Yes, we need to take action.
In case anyone doesn't think it's real: Barcelona authorities are having to take the unprecedented step of having to have water brought in by giant tankers. The water levels in the reservoir that feeds the city has sunk so low it's exposed the eerie sight of a medieval village that was flooded when the reservoir was opened in the 1960s. See for yourselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/ And check out this NYT article, "Family Science Project Yields Surprising Data About a Siberian Lake" - Since 1945, Dr. Kozhov, a professor at Irkutsk State University, would record water temperature and clarity and track the plant and animal plankton species as deep as 2,400 feet. Later other family members and now scientist continued his work to find surprising warming of "very deep" water temperatures. Some of these things may be happening naturally, but what level of ignorance would say that "we" don't have something to do with it! Side: Yes, we need to take action.
"Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period, including changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities." Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Global warming is happening and i think that everybody should make an action to stop this. It is not too late yet and we should try to do something before its to late. If everybody joins together and make an action we can make a difference and stop this. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Great! Thank you for this great information which I've just gain by stopping here. Infect i am student and was busy in my study but still get time of few minutes to being on your site while searching about my course thesis project which i'm sure will be completed soon. I enjoyed my stay and really like to be here again. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Fantastic! Thank you for this kind of great information which I've just gain by ceasing here. Infect i am college and was busy inside my study but however get time of jiffy to being on your website while searching about my personal course thesis project which i'm sure will be completed quickly. I enjoyed my stay and enjoy to be here once again. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Global Warming is becoming more of a threat to the planet today than ever before! With our increase in pollution,fossil fuels, and foreign oil. we are steadily melting away the ozone layer which is the result of record setting mass flooding,historical heavy downpours of rain and record setting snowstorms! Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Refute this, I dare you 2!! I was just informed, that I need to make this a little longer. I suppose this is because no one has ever proven something so big, with so little! Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
You have only to look at the devastation all around us to realize that the earth is undergoing major climate change. It's a common misconception that global warming refers only to hotter temperatures. Some of the signs of global warming are increased storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes, more severe winters, and melting of polar ice caps. In the last few months, we have experienced all of these and more. The only question is how we're going to stop global warming, not whether or not it exists. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
You have only to look at the devastation all around us to realize that the earth is undergoing major climate change. It's a common misconception that global warming refers only to hotter temperatures. Some of the signs of global warming are increased storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes, more severe winters, and melting of polar ice caps. In the last few months, we have experienced all of these and more. The only question is how we're going to stop global warming, not whether or not it exists. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
I am so totally spamming the wall You have only to look at the devastation all around us to realize that the earth is undergoing major climate change. It's a common misconception that global warming refers only to hotter temperatures. Some of the signs of global warming are increased storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes, more severe winters, and melting of polar ice caps. In the last few months, we have experienced all of these and more. The only question is how we're going to stop global warming, not whether or not it exists. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
I personally believe in the science that says global warming is more human caused in the last 150 years, primarily due to the industrial revolution and consequent burning of fossil fuels. Here's what planetsave.com concludes after reviewing several recent studies. "The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2). Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4). Additionally, in every study over every timeframe examined, the two largest factors influencing global temperatures were human-caused: (1) GHGs, followed by (2) human aerosol emissions. This is a dangerous situation because as we clean our air and reduce our SO2 emissions, their cooling effect will dissipate, revealing more of the underlying GHG-caused global warming trend. Note that not all studies broke out the effects the same way (i.e. only examining ‘natural’ and not solar or volcanic effects individually), which is the reason some bars appear to be missing from Figures 2 to 4." (see link for graphs) Planetsave (http://s.tt/15jlP) Reportedly, all credible scientists believe the data shows that current global warming is primarily due to human activity. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
Global warming is certainly happening. More and more abnormal natural disasters are happening, and the number of extreme weather conditions around the world is increasing rapidly and constantly. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at its highest position over the last 100,000 years. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
3
points
we created global warming to begin with so we must take action to stop it. If we don't take action then the Consequences will come around and affect future generations. If we want to create a better future then why do we continue to destroy it by using natural resources and creating CO2. we need to do something before it is too late. if you really think about it future generations wont be able to see things that we have seen such as certain animals. so we must take responsibility and take action. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
3
points
3
points
3
points
Is everybody BLIND! It's HAPPENING, water is rising, it's getting warmer! It's staring you right in the face. It is not a natural cycle because there is no record of this ever happening! We need to take action, reduce pollution and be 100% more natural! Side: Yes, we need to take action.
4
points
I am gonna cry after this. HOW COULD NAT GEO DO THIS??? a. The sunlight's intensity falling on earth is a much bigger factor than the percentage the atmosphere absorbs. "the greenhouse effect begins with the sun, and the energy it radiates towards the earth". Does that not tell you that if the energy of the sun changes, so to will the amount of radiance absorbed? b.'Naturally occurring greenhouse gasses' includes water vapour which is a much greater constituent of global warming than anything else, contributing 95% of the total sunlight energy absorption. Compared to this, Carbon dioxide and Methane don't even measure. c. Did not they begin with 'earth's climate has fluctuated, cycling from ice ages to warmer periods'? Then suddenly humans come along and change it, well, what happened to all the other factors? d. In the last CENTURY, the planet's temperature has risen unusually fast. Global industrialization did not take off until the post WWII boom, which would suggest that temperatures should increase most significantly during the 50's and 60's, however records and ice cores show that in fact, during the 50's, 60's and 70's, the global temperature decreased... what gives? If an external factor affected this, obviously that factor is much more powerful than the combined efforts of the Global economy to pump out CO2 d. 'Scientists believe', no, scientists do not believe, they provide impartial evidence for. Also, there has been significant political interference with modern science, a recent survey at the EPA recording that 41% of scientists feel that their work was misrepresented and/or distorted by politicians. So who's opinion is really being broad-casted? e. 'Evidence for global warming includes a recent string of very warm years'. RECENT. Yes, it may indicate global warming, but because it has only been a short spell, you cannot conclude it is a trend. f. 'researchers predict that'. Is that not ambiguous? Who? What qualifications do they hold? How did they research? Was their research valid? g. Focus on possibilities. Yes, it could mean this, or it could mean nothing. Nothing is gained from speculation, rather one should focus on what has happened, and attempt to extrapolate. Better yet, tell us why researchers think this, or that, rather than dwell on possibilities. The most obvious stamp of propaganda is fear, and when one speculates, a lot of bad things can happen. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
12
points
I am going to provide scientific articles that directly refute what Turpificatus is saying: A) For one thing, the atmosphere regulates the heat and cold of the earth to a heavy degree. This link, which I am using as a tongue-in-cheek (but true) reference illustrates a orbital body which is just as close to the sun as we are but lacks an atmosphere:http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/moontemp.shtml The moon's temperature varies from a couple hundred degree below zero to a couple hundred degrees above zero (Celcius). The Earth would go through about the same temperatures without our atmosphere. This is very, very basic science. B) You have to understand a couple things about science: they talk in scales that are very different from what we commonly understand. To a geologist 10,000 years is an extremely short period of time....but that is our history as a human civilization (when civilizations started to arise). The carbon being released into the atmosphere is going to raise global average temperatures by just a couple degrees. However, that has huge consequences for us. If the planet warms by twenty degrees we won't be able to survive as species. So you are right, the impact is small when speaking in climatological terms...but the impact is massive when you consider human civilization and human survival. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html C) There was 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in 2004, one year. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-21-carbon-dioxide-emissions_N.htm?csp=34 In one major eruption, a volcano can drop global temperatures by a few degrees. Those volcanic eruptions spew a few MILLION tons of byproducts into the atmosphere, at one time. I think you need to think harder on how much of an impact human beings are having on the earth. Our productive capacity has grown immensely in a short period of time, in 1980 we only spewed 18 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, a 60% increase in 24 years. http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.php D) There were quite a number of volcanic eruptions during the time-frame you are talking about. Scientists have long known that both the sun and volcanoes have an effect on the climate. Unfortunately for you, the sun has been on a decreasing energy trend (though there may be periodic upward spikes). http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ You are also conflating a couple of things about industrialization: Yes, it began in the 1890s and became a major force in the 1920s-30s. But this occurred mostly in the United States and Europe. The scale has been on the increase ever since, and as industrialization has increased (along with population) around the world the greater effect it's having. According to the above link, the sun and volcanoes were able to mask this warming up to a point, but now our CO2 and other greenhouse byproducts have increased beyond what these and other natural processes can counter. D2) That study you are citing works entirely against you. I am absolutely astounded that you do not understand what those scientists were saying, what politicians they are talking about. Those scientists have been interfered with by conservative politicians trying to keep people from hearing the truth about global warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_ From the article: ""OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons," said a scientist from one of the agency's regional offices. "Because the real reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit." I am appalled that you would misrepresent the article, that you would outright distort the truth behind it. The scientists are complaining that the White House has been censoring their findings about global warming, not that liberal politicians have been keeping them from telling people that it isn't real or man-made. You should be ashamed for either lying about these facts or not doing sufficient research and reading the articles you are talking about. E) You may want to have a word with NOAA and every single prestigious scientific and climate-science oriented body in North America and the world: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ F) and G) http://www.livescience. http://www.nsf.gov/news/ http://www.pewclimate.org/ http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/03/ http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ccp/ http://www.giss.nasa. It usually isn't considered propaganda when most independent scientists and scientific organizations in that particular field agree with most if not all of what is said. I think you need to do a little bit more research before you start getting overly upset about organizations saying such things about global warming. National Geographic has almost the entire scientific community behind it, what exactly do you have? Side: Yes, we need to take action.
Reading through these one has to wonder, as I have in the past when others of the right have stood up to the majority of scientists, decrying what they propose, why individuals like turpificatus would not at least say something like "Certainly big business and humanity need to curb their emissions of harmful pollutants" or "Even if humans aren't creating the global warming we could try to better our polluting ways and clean things up, just in case because we know what we're doing isn't making our world 'better'." It often reeks of big business agendas, but I suppose could just be an instance of fear (fear that the evidence given is true and so ugly does not want to face) inducing contrary reactions. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
"The sunlight's intensity falling on earth is a much bigger factor than the percentage the atmosphere absorbs." But the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth is dictated by how much is absorbed by the atmosphere, so while badly expressed, the program got it right. The amount of heat radiated by the sun may vary naturally, but there's no real chance of permanent changes for hundreds of thousands of years, when it starts to run out of fissile material. Although you say "Global industrialization did not take off until the post WWII boom,", this isn't about globalisation, this is about major industries creating CO2 emissions, and that started with the Industrial Revolution, starting in the late eighteenth century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: Yes, we need to take action.
2
points
Yes it's happening, the evidence is overwhelming. We need to take action because the evidence that it is largely caused by human technology is convincing as well. Every time I hear the roar, feel the heat, smell the fumes of a car I think about the noise/heat/smell of the manufacturing processes which built it and so on in lengthy regression. Noise/heat/smell is indicative of inefficient energy transfer aka pollution. Multiply this by the trillions of units of technology whirring, clicking and beeping in the world and it's clear we have an affect on the environment that can be improved. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
0
points
2
points
There is no doubt whatsoever that it is happening, there is no controversy on this point. There are however some crazy loons who think it's not attributable to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere but whatever the cause, it is happening - natural cycle or not. This side of the debate should have been 'are humans the cause'. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
1
point
Like i wrote in my post on the right fossil fuels may not even be rare or come from ancient organisms. There is alot of evidence that strong suggest they actually come from volcanic activity which also releases carbondioxide. So like i said read and weep!!!! Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
to anyone who will listen ....first thank you to anyone who takes the time to listen and respond ...if I don't get back to you in a timely fashion I don't own any tech so it is very hard for me to get acess ...next I would like to address my serious short comings as they will affect you the reader ...I can not spell I have had only a 4th grade education ...my skill sets include math and physics....I lack any useful skills and will try to sound better than I am ...and for this im sorry but my intention is to show what I have learned as I study and research everyday.....and yes I do this without my own computer...as man has for thousands of years....and will again very soon so let me divert to say nothing will replace the map and compass ....I have said all this to say we as a world have had weather weapons treaties in place since the 60s and 70s ....remember chinas mess in the bejing Olympics they tinkered with weather and screwed up....made it rain a lot....I have had the pleasure of participating in many lectures debates and classroom discussions with many high level universities in the US and Britian ...as far as math and physics anyway.....im not a noted teacher but a wallflower in most cases watching and learning and I now know and can prove the cycle of lies and deception you the people have been exsposed to ....such as many new elements added to the periodic table...the real reason they want you to abort your babies....what stem cells actually do how time is actualy a cellular response to a cycle of light and dark...not actualy a thing of its own....sort of ..how genetic testing is being used to produce hybrids....Russia and china are way ahead and the military group darpa just received the first 15 million dollar dump to start super soldier dna maping and reconstruction....I can prove that our space program is bogas junk science...anyhow I have learned to see the wires mirrors and lies used to fool you all into submission....please reaserch for your self weather weapons treaties...and the devices they have that made everyone sign before they were openly used ....or how about the weapons they use to cause earthquackes in third world countries ....or the fact that they lie to you and tell you cern is to replicate big bang but only few get into actual project alice and other high level cern activity...why ...well they as do I know that big bang is junk science at very best average scifi plot...the real reason is dimensional travel....and every time they open and use these energy fields dark matter is brought to earth and causes a lot of climate issues as we are not suppose to have this dark matter here.....but I say please don't believe me do your own home work ...don't steal someone elses....or use fancy words or long numeric rythms to try to bedazzle people into believing you I can prove anti gravity.. stem cell replication... hybridized dna chain ....science behind scaler weapons ....the slight of math in most theories so ..... I have been learning and watching this for a long long time ...so yes this is man made but not by you or I but by the ruling class elite .....also I have other proofs about crazy stuff...but for now open your eyes look around ..and ask ...why would we have weather weapon treaties ...more stable and less followed than nuclear treaties....good luck people ...unplug from the matrix Side: Yes, we need to take action.
2
points
How can you explain that carbon emissions that have risen thirty percent since the industrial revolution? nothing like this has ever happened in Earth's history! Also, the ignorance of global warming is usually caused by inaccurate or limited knowledge. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
1
point
Global Warming is definitely happening. Scientists have been warning us for decades, but the people in power just aren't listening. If you look at the North Pole, it's ice caps are shrinking rapidly. And this could mean that oceans are going to start rising. If we don't stop using fossil fuels, this will become a big problem. And now with Donald Trump as president, it's quite unlikely that much development will take place in the next few years. America is one of the biggest producers of fossil fuels, and with a president who believes global warming is a hoax, the point of no return is coming soon. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
1
point
1
point
Public fraud is about two things the wording and money. The grievance is Global Warming the conundrum is if there was an ice age there has to be a warming for the ice to have melted. Just to point out a United States that is talk about publicly when most people bring up the topic Global Warming or Climate change they are talking about Human Climate Manipulation. When a group of people can intentionally add by knowledge things that they know will complicate the focus of research made on a public grievance/complaint they are in fact stalling. Global warming arrived shortly after public storm water runoff evaluations had been made. So who thinks dumping billions of tones of Salt and chemical dicers on frozen water is a Warming process? Who believes it is done on purpose by people? Side: Yes, we need to take action.
|
11
points
Although this question is slightly misleading, because Global Warming does exist, and it is part of a natural cycle. When we look at earth's history, the climate on earth is not dictated so much by carbon dioxide, but by the Sun's radiance. Nothing short of a dysonsphere is going to liberate earth's climate from the sun. To address ideas about carbon dioxide and temperature, one must realise that ice cores samples show carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, however rather than carbon dioxide affect temperature, when superimposed, Carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind, by an average of 800 years. This can be explained by the solubility of Carbon dioxide in water as a function of the temperature of water (warmer water will dissolve less carbon dioxide). Likewise, when we superimpose recorded sunspot activity over temperature levels, there is a much closer correlation between temperature and sun surface activity than between temperature and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, if we want to really consider greenhouse gases, Water Vapour contributes 95% of greenhouse warming, without which, we would be a frozen deslolate planet. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
5
points
Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
The global warming that we've been experiencing over the past decade or so is part of a natural cycle that will be reversed in the near future. Check out the article that shows we are about to experience a 23 year Global Cooling period. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
2
points
First off, let me say that all of the "linked" material, is neither from a scientist nor some one I'd trust to tell me what the weather is going to be tomorrow! Even if there is only a .0001% chance that our (human civilizations) existence is effecting the planet, then unequivocally we should try and fix, change our behavior!! Side: Yes, we need to take action.
6
points
Its happening, just not for the reasons mentioned in traditional media. It is the natural cycle of Earth. Recent studies suggest we could experience significant cooling do to the solar cycles in 150 years (I don't have a citation). I do what I can to protect the Earth, but if we disappeared from the planet, in 1000 years (nothing on the scale of the universe) there would be no evidence our civilization ever existed. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
5
points
OMG here we go again, Global warming is another big "MYTH" this which we are seeing is part of the cycle that the earth has gone through from the beginning of its time. Scientist have already proven it. Global warming is a gimmick always has been. NEXT! Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Kid Global warming is most likely a normal cycle; which may or may not be exacerbated by humans. It's consequences may or may not be as bad as most experts would lead us to believe. That being said...there is no way you can call it a "myth". It's very real. All sides pro and con agree on this. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
yes i see your point, i think alot of ppl are mislead about what global warming actually is... and to tell u the truth the media and everything seems to pertray global warming as man made , but if its part of the cycle thats been here forever it cant be. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
People who say "scientists have already proven" global warming is a hoax either aren't paying attention to any scientists or are listening to right-wing radio. The IPCC (Internation Panel on Climate Change) has put together four reports on the issue with contributions from over two thousand scientists. I defy you to find a comprehensive report with that many scientific minds saying climate change is a hoax. Seriously, go find it for me. When you give up let me know. Also, no scientist is willing to conclusively say 100% that climate change is man-made and will lead to catastrophes, because they know that no matter how sure they are, their work is still a scientific theory, they are very careful about their wording. This last report from the IPCC was regarded as "the strongest wording yet" on climate change. The point is, any scientist who says conclusively that global warming is a myth is a shitty scientist . . . and probably a dickbag. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
As far as I can tell the IPCC is a political body that receives data and conclusions concerning bits and pieces of the climate picture; such as findings regarding solar output or findings concerning the effect of co2 on solar radiation retention. This political panel uses the information submitted by scientists to form conclusions on climate, how it will affect humans, and what needs to be done to reverse any adverse affects. The IPCC is biased from the beginning, in their approach, by assuming something is wrong with climate and we must fix it. This gives me trepidations about having a panel of a few politicians sift through the mountain of data submitted by scientists in order to make conclusions about what is causing a change in the weather from what we saw a few decades ago(The earth is many thousands of decades old). I am then supposed to trust that this panel has considered all submitted data for the report are you nuts!!! The other thing that worries me is the lack of credentials of panelists provided on the IPCC website. So as far as i can tell AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming), as you see it, sir, is based on the IPCC reports which so far as I can tell are written by politicians. These politicians can use the information provided any way they see fit, they could make honest mistakes leading to the wrong conclusions or they could manufacture conclusions or they could just be right. The very existence of the IPCC to me ruins the argument of a consensus and of the peer review process. I mean come on Stalin and Hitler both were both peer reviewed and had reached a consensus among their political parties to commit mass genocide. I personally think science should be done by scientists not politicians. I personally don't think humans are causing a rampant heating of the planet, but that does not mean I won't keep an open mind. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Yeah, awesome. You know that anyone can sign this petition right? I downloaded the petition for myself, I could sign it if I want, all I have to do is put "Ph. D" at the end of my name. Oh, also, Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, the first guy on the list is a creationist. Rad. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
It is happening, yes, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Sure, using "green" technology is a good thing, but the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember the ice age? We are now going into Earth's heating cycle. A "heat age" so to speak. People also make a big deal about the polar ice caps melting due to global warming. Something I don't think many of them realize: The ice up north is already floating on water. Water also expands, rather than contracts, when it freezes. Therefore, if the northern ice were to melt, without the ice in Antarctica melting, the sea level would actually decline due to the ice not taking up so much space. Combine that with the ice in the south melting....Well, the sea level wouldn't change all that much. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
6
points
Actually, Dead Eye, ice takes up the exact same amount of space as water, the water level wouldn't change at all. However, that is only the case with sea ice, ice that is floating in the water. Unfortunately, there is ice on land on both Antarctica and Greenland that would cause sea levels to rise by 20-40 feet world-wide. Anyways, I dare you to find reputable sources that back up this claim: "It is happening, yes, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it. Sure, using "green" technology is a good thing, but the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles. Remember the ice age? We are now going into Earth's heating cycle. A "heat age" so to speak." Side: Yes, we need to take action.
Regardless of how civilized the world is, there are still large numbers of people living in the most primitive conditions. The most important of these because they are the most scientifically studied are the "aborigines" of Australia. The scientific study of the aboriginal Australian forms the basis of what is best known of primitive societies in general. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Al Gore and his slideshow.Look what he has done.I guess he answered one of the other questions I saw on here.Would you kill one person to save 100?He is the one flying on private jets all over the world showing his middle school slideshow.Greater good huh. I guess its OK for him to have 30000 dollar light bills since its offset by his work for the global warming cult.Sorry to go Gore but he is the face of global warming. I believe its the socialist driven agenda to take more of our freedom and money so they can save us from ourselves. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
3
points
What a load of Bollocks. Global warming is a lie, sent by politicians so that they can tax us on our emissions of carbon dioxide, simple as that. Ice caps melting? The average temperature at the north pole, (location of the famous 'hole in the ozone layer') is -50 degrees centigrade. I don't know about anyone else, but i don't think ice melts until about 1-4 degrees. If that is the case- which it is, if you believe the 'science and evidence', then we've got a while to go yet before we all live in canoes. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
2
points
Global warming IS a natural cycle. The same thing happened not too long ago (I believe less than a century) and will happen again. There will be a time when the earth replenishes it's atmosphere but that time is way beyond ours and I believe the Earth will give us fair warning before that happens. (A good movie to watch to give an idea on what will happen would be "The Day after Tomorrow") Nevertheless, we are harming the earth in many ways by our exhaust emissions and we should put a stop to it, but it is only speeding up global warming which is a natural cycle, not "causing" it. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
2
points
NO! In case you didn't hear....NO. Global warming is not happening. Why has the Global temperature fallen over the past six years? Wow. Why do the global warming pundits not include the past six years in their computer model qualifications? Simply put: Al Gore's Mythology is busted! Many people busted Al Gore and his jet-setting high-flying carbon burning-terrorist cell. Yet, the money has not lead the purveyors of modern truth (money mongering media-types) to speak the TRUTH. My ace is a confidential discussion held with a world renowned geo-physist who, point blank said, "Humans have had nothing to do with the current global climate change." Dr. R. further explained that the current global change is a natural occurance. So, an ice age is coming. Take it on faith, if you will. The rational will survive. Honestly, I hope the environuts chain themselves to trees. More oxygen for me. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
2
points
Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Do not become angry with me for saying this, but Global Warming in itself does not exists. What is happening is a Global Climate CHANGE, but not a WARMING. Our Global Climate Change is affecting our climate in more ways than just heating it up; it is also causing it to cool. Playing the other side, the one which I support here, I do not think that Global Warming, or Global Climate Change for that matter, exists. Climate fluctuation is a constant process with the world's climate reaching both ends of the spectrum throughout history and prehistory. It is hypothesized that we are, in fact, overdue (by a couple thousand years) for another Ice Age, and then another warming. In short, there is no Global Warming, merely the natural shift of temperature and climate in the various biomes of the world. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
HERE is a classic example of selfish corrupt pollitics and their climate change copouts . http://www.australiamatters. NOTE: How they cut this from the air just as Peter was about to name names. Please chech out TMA. http://www.truthmovementaustralia.com. And please help save Peter from our corrupt government. NOTE; This is not a request for donations. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
2
points
Looks like I'm the tie breaker. Read this and weap: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/ Michael Crichton shows in a speech to the Senate that climate research is not reliable and that more studies by independent organizations are needed to prove it true. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
3
points
2
points
Two or three degrees wouldn't melt the ice in antarctica because it is already below freezing. go ahead, try this experiment. fill a cup of water and freeze it below 28 degrees F. Now turn your freezer's temperature up two or three degrees. ITS STILL FROZEN! thats not the reason the ice is melting in Antarctica... its a natural process. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Global Warming is not caused by humans, but is a natural cycle, that has occurred since the birth of our earth approx. 4.8 billion years ago, long before humans ever trod on its surface. Even the recently deceased Professor Stephen Schneider, who was a prominent member of the I.P.C.C., was a fervent believer of an Ice-age coming until 1978. He then suddenly turned 180% and became a doomsayer of AGW. How could any one believe in doomsayers like him, or Al Gore or anyone who think, that they can predict our climate over a 50 to 90 year period? Even our weather-stations, that have access to millions of dollars of equipment, cannot predict our weather correctly for more, than a few days!!!! The Green activist have since the 1960's zealously pursued doomsday predictions with their hatred for anything, that is not natural (mining for oil, goal, gas etc. etc. and the use of insecticides, like D.D.T., that actually had saved hundreds of millions of human lives). Their decisions are not based on science, but on political ideology and they do not care at all, that the ban on D.D.T. has caused some 50 to 80 million lives since 1972 and that every year nearly 3 million more lives are lost to typhus and malaria in the poorer countries. Greens are totally hypocritical, as they do not wish to abandon their own luxuries, like driving SUVs, flying (and owning jet aircraft like Al Gore) and using everything that is manufactured from mined products. They should instead use transportation like the Amish and build wooden ships from dead trees, instead of using ships made of steel with GPS and radar! Regards, Nos Lapre from Sydney, Australia. [email protected] Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
1
point
1
point
This is just a post from another agruement i wrote. Read and weep! People claim global warming is happening because we're having the worst drought in years, the largest forest fires, the hottest temperature and the most the destructive storms. Lies lies and that right more lies. First off a good quantiy of the western part of america is a desert and they're pumping water into it to grow food. What do expect to happen when you try to grow food where you can't and beside this whole drought is just probably a cycle of the event the Dust Bowl. Secondly these huge forest fire are suppose to happen i took a class in Environmental Science and the book clearly said the when such an environment reaches its climax a forest fire will eventually occur to recycle nutrients. So global warming has nothing to do with forest fires they'd been happening and will continue to. Finally the heat and storms it should be know by now the earth goes through several weather and temperature patterns such as El Nino(or whatever they call it). Interestly enough most people seem to forget that the earth's orbit is not round. It's elliptical so there will be times where the earth will be much closer to sun and alot farther especially during the Equinox. Beside if global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels wouldn't all the plankton and other micro-organism suck up all that co2 and deposit it at the bottom of the ocean. Honestly i don't think that fossil fuels even come from ancient organisms because if so why does coal the oldest form of all fossil fuels contain traces of carbon 14? That would only mean that coal is only about 50,000 years old. Also fossil fuels have been found to contain large amounts of trace elements such as germanuim and mercury. What plant or animal you know that has every existed to intake germanuim or mercury? In addition volcanoes are known to have large reservoirs of petro-fuels. It is fact that 86% the emmisions released from mud volcanoes is methane. I think someone is pulling a curtain in front our face with this global warming nonsense. Dispute me if you can. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
I would love to take you up on this ....so thank you for the opportunity ...first..the dust bowl was created by over use of virgin top soil that had no vast root system to hold it in place and this was a layer of soil never tilled or plowed and wasn't in a really good place to be plowed on such a massive scale ..the dust bowl was stupidity and bad timing with .....anytime you unleash a mass group of unemployed people to go and do as much work as you can and sell or give them tools and farm land ......you can expect the to work that land like a stolen mule....and that's hat they did...and with no vast root system from a forest the top soil was simply loosened by man and blown away by GOD ....and as for weather syatems look up the 1960s and seventies weather weapon treaties....any mid level sscientist can tell you how easy it is to alter weather patterns with fairly simple tech....and as for the earth orbiting around the sun .....let me ask you if the us is 2700 miles across and our clocks are within seconds of solar accuracy ....how the hell do we have five one hour time zones on a planet that spins at 1600 miles per hour give or take depending on the liar telling you this ....at that speed and this know distance 2 time zones is what you would have within seconds of solar accuracy.....heliocentric now that is just carnival side show theater for slack jawed goons....and please don't get me started on nasa the think tank for morons and fakes ....boobs each one ...carbon 14 you say ...50,000 years no less.....wow were to begin here ...how about more like less than half of that any dating system used to date is flawed and I can rig a test anytime you want me to ...liken the dating science to a lie detector....60% accurate under perfect conditions a chest cold will debunk a lie detector...mercury and germauim amazing ....lets talk particles ...if you take a simple neutrino ...it can display perfect superposition ...but because of superstring theory ....the binary code in the core ribbon says black white hard or soft and nothing else ....you see everything has a written code in it telling it what it is and what it can and cannot do.....oil is oil and coal is coal take for instance grown diamond is made layer by layer starting with a crystalline carbon base no lab has ever ever created a pure anything from nothing they must have a starter of some kind ..a like material to work with ....you can graft things together but you cannot just create...and because this is so ...oil is oil ....but the base of my argument is weather weapon systems had to be used and tested to force signed treaties...period thank you Side: Yes, we need to take action.
1
point
Look, global warming IS happening and could be classed as a threat. But, in reality, humans aren't the main cause. This cycle of the earth's temperature changing has been going on pretty much since the world began and it is totally fine. There is hard evidence that a much more devastating change in the climate occurred in the middle ages, how could humans have caused that? However, if we want to really talk about climate change without human impact, we can go back 700million years ago. This was when the earth was changed into a big snowball. You may argue that the temperature went down, so this doesn't mean anything, but it proves the fact that the natural cycle exists and us humans are just a part of it, not the cause. If the whole world suddenly went electric and emitted no carbon into the atmosphere etc, the cycle, in my opinion, would carry on. Technically, we are coming out of an ice age, so temperatures are bound to rise. Just imagine if every environmentalists' dreams came true and there was a massive cut in the fossil fuels used, carbon emitted (even though humans only contribute to 0.00022percent of the carbon in the atmosphere) and all the rest of it. Imagine what it would take to have this happen and, possibly, how it could affect the environment for the worse because of the massive de-industrialisation of the world. The resources to make all things environment friendly with NOT environment friendly resources could produce way more negative stuff than anticipated and just make it worse. I propose that we just carry on as we are but don't get reckless. Do re-use plastic bags but not for the greater good, that's beyond us humans, but from a subjective view of the children living near landfills etc. Finally, scientists DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what they're doing. It is nearly impossible to measure this and, as an example, in the 1970's scientists thought the earth was cooling so I really don't think we should be listening to what they say as they're probably only saying it so they don't sound stupid. Thanks for reading, questions are welcome. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
1
point
Look, global warming IS happening and could be classed as a threat. But, in reality, humans aren't the main cause Look, 97 percent of the scientists who actually study this exact topic disagree. Hence, you should stfu because you know nothing. Side: Yes, we need to take action.
The Earth warms and cools, warms and cools, in roughly 1000 year cycles. Our present warming cycle is called 'The Modern Warming Period" and it just happens to be right on schedule. Our last warming cycle was The Medieval Warming Period which was exactly 1000 years ago. Roughly 1000 years before that, The Roman Warming Period. Then the Minoan Warming Period, The Egyptian warming Period, The Sumerian warming Period etc., etc. It is just so interesting how a bunch of self interested publicly funded scientists could be so successful in using the total ignorance of the public about ancient history, to claim that a perfectly normal, recurring event like global warming and cooling cycles, were, in pushing a leftist political and supposedly world saving ideology onto the public, which financially benefits themselves. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
I agree with you, Voceangeli, there is no debate today on whether the earth is heating up. But 50 years ago climate scientists were loudly claiming that the earth was cooling down into a new Ice Age, and they had credible evidence for that claim. From 1930 to 1970 worldwide temperatures reduced. Climate scientists knew that the Earth warmed and cooled every 1000 years, and that every 10,000 years the earth went into a relatively short duration Ice Age. That has been the cycle for about 60 million years. Our present warming cycle, just happens to be the 10th in the latest cycle. And, I would add, if the previous 9 cycles are any guide to go by, our temperatures will increase by another 2 degree before it is over and the world will indeed plunge into another Ice Age. God help us then. Climate scientists were so alarmed at the 1930's onwards drop in global temperatures, which they reasonably thought was heralding the start of a new Ice Age, that they loudly demanded that governments around the world must immediately start depositing black soot onto our ice caps to delay global cooling. Aren't you glad that nobody then took them seriously? Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
Actually, Geoff, the "evidence" is underwhelming that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence at all other than "computer modelling" in which noted climate scientists made certain predictions. None of those preditions came true. I don't know about you, Geoff, but If "experts" who claim that the temperatures are rising significantly, the ice caps are melting, and the seas are rising, make predictions about immanent doom which never eventuate, then you don't have to be a Mensa to figure out that these "experts" do not have a single, solitary clue what they are talking about. Climate alarmist predictions which flopped. The first IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded. "Entire nations" were not "wiped off the Earth by 2000", predicted by Noel Brown, the director of the UN environment Program in 1989. On November 4, 1998, the BBC, quoting "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008, while skiing in Germany would be "impossible" as the snow would simply fall as rain. The Washington Post. 2019 "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now." In 2007, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be "ice free" by 2013. The Arctic ice cap grew by 533,000 square miles between August 2012 and August 2013. In 2006, NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhattan would be underwater by 2008."
In 2006, In December 2009, Al Gore claimed that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. John Kerry proclaimed 2014 as the year the arctic would melt, the seas would rise, and they would drown low lying island chains and coastal cities. The BBC predicted that New Orleans and Miami would be underwater by 2014. In 2014 when the arctic was certainly not ice free, and the oceans of the world had stubbornly refused to rise to drown cities and subways, and entire nations had not been wiped off the Earth, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA), released May 6, 2014, reported that the Arctic Ocean is expected to be ice free in summer before mid-century. Seems like if the "expert" predictions sadly do not eventuate, the "expert" alarmists just put the date for the end of times back another decade or two. Oddly, Coastal real estate prices all over the world have not crashed, and nobody with a water front property (including Australia's climate commissioner Tim Flannery) are trying to sell their waterfront properties at giveaway prices. As a matter of fact, waterside real estate prices just keep climbing. Perhaps it is because the equity managers, the real smart guys, who are responsible for investing trillions in real estate, regard HIGW as complete malarkey? Australian "Climate Change Commissioner" Tim Flannery's 2006 prediction that "the dams will never fill again" looks funny when the dams overfilled and they drowned Brisbane, Townsville and Windsor. Sydney's Warragamba dam had to open it's floodgates twice. When the dams overflowed, Tim Flannery then claimed that "climate change can not be ruled out" as the reason for the flooding rains. Not bad. Drought? Blame climate change. Flooding rains? Blame climate change. Temperatures hotter and bad bushfires? Blame climate change. Northern hemisphere buried in snow? Blame climate change for that too. On 16th of October, 2008 the British parliament passed the British Climate Change Act, which is the most expensive piece of legislation it has ever passed, committing the UK to cut emissions of CO2 by 80%, at the cost of some $400 billion pounds. On that very day it snowed in London in October, for the first time since 1934. $400 billion pounds in the UK alone? Somebody is sure making big money out of this farce. Climate "Scientist" Dr David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. (you remember them, the Climategate guys) predicted that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
In February 2019, (and in 2020) the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow. It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane. The Himalayan Glaciers did not melt. The "ship of fools", consisting of an expedition from Sydney University which set sail to Antarctica in a taxpayer funded chartered Russian icebreaker, to prove that the East Antarctic Ice Shelf was melting. Instead it got stuck in record amounts of thick sea ice and had to be rescued by carbon belching rescue ships and helicopters. The "urgently" needed (and hugely expensive) desalination plants in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide which still rot away unused. The Climategate scandal where supposed "scientists" from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit discussed among themselves how to fudge the data which clearly displayed that global temperature rises were levelling out. And, they also discussed the sacking of one EACR scientist, who was a climate change sceptic. And whaddya know, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology themselves got caught red handed "adjusting" the historical temperature data to "prove" rising temperatures, by the families of people who have been recording temperatures in their own districts for over 100 years, and who still have their families hand written records to prove it was complete BS. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
To "foil" who quite reasonably tells us that the Earth's temperature is rising, then unreasonably attributes it solely on human activity by asking us "What else could be causing this?" Gee willackers, "foil", I think you just nailed it. You see that is the question you should have asked yourself and then researched and answered before you advocated for the idea that only humans could cause global warming. If you had ever bothered to do your homework and answer your own question, you might have discovered that the heating and cooling of the earth roughly every thousand years is a perfectly natural and recurring event. What causes the 1000 year heating and cooling events? I don't know for sure but it seems to be related to sunspot activity, according to astronomers. The Sun's output is cyclical too, and it warms and cools. I know that the earth warms and cools because it is part of human history. Many historical events such as the invasion of warmer countries by barbarian tribes from high latitude or steppe areas was caused by global cooling. Civilisations flourished during warming periods and crops failed and people starved during cooling periods. Climate change, both heating and cooling, destroyed civilisations and budding civilisations. And not a steam engine, aeroplane, coal fired power station, or motor car in sight. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
To "yoyoyush123". You are right, CO2 levels are rising. So what? CO2 levels are at their lowest point for at least 600 millions years. CO2 is now just a trace gas in the atmosphere, locked up in carbonaceous rocks, and it is so low that agronomists claim that if it had not been for human activity, putting some of it back, all vegetation on Earth could have eventually choked to death for lack of CO2. But CO2 is still only a trace gas. It is bugger all. What is a 30% increase in bugger all? It is still bugger all. Can a 30% increase in CO2 affect the environment? yes, it can. Agronomists are talking about "the greening of the Earth". CO2 is plant food and all over the Earth plants are thriving. Plants grow bigger and faster in CO2 rich environments. Side: No, it is a natural cycle.
|
