Trump is right about ine thing - global warming is a con.
I agree
Side Score: 1
|
I disagree
Side Score: 11
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
In a recent paper co-authored by numerous scientists based on half a dozen independent studies, the conclusion is that there is 97% consensus that humans are causing recent global warming, which is consistent with other surveys of climate scientists. It is also endorsed by NASAC and various other Academies of Sciences, up to 26 of them so far. The Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus. Thirteen countries have signed a joint statement endorsing this consensus. Letters from eighteen scientific organizations sent to Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." Over 90% of climate scientists, both published and not, Climatologists and researchers, believe in Global Warming and the role that humans are playing on it. These are people with a combined experience that would blast your meager knowledge on it out of this planets' hemisphere but by all means...believe an ignorant idiot who owns stock in the pipelines and oil industry and has zero knowledge, experience or education dealing with the planets climate. It's easier to deny and make no changes than to accept and have to change. Side: I disagree
2
points
If you check out those scientists that dissent, You will find most are tied to oil and gas in one way or another. A "con" usually makes money for the con artist. You are saying that well over 90% of the worlds scientists are making money off climate change?? How?? (Please don't single out one person, how are THOUSANDS of scientists making enough money PERSONALLY to risk committing fraud??) Side: I disagree
1
point
Simple, if there is a problem that MIGHT exist, and you market the problem like it does exist, then you have an easy way to fund research in your field. for example: the number of stomata on a plant decreasing because global warming Dissolved Co2 levels decreasing because of global warming. extreeme weather due to global warming. you tie enough "Data" into a phenomenon that's not real, with the shakiest of link, and you can claim just about anything is an effect or effects the phenomenon. Decrease in plant stomata happens because there's more Co2 in the atmosphere, more Co2 means more heat, sure, which causes more dissolved Co2 to come out of the oceans, sure, and that altogether is causing a climate shift that is making warm weather items, like hurricanes that get their power from warm water stronger. the notions behind climate change is real, but the places they fail to convince me is that it is a catastrophic change that isn't within reasonable parameters, and that our world isn't just changing in a not catastrophic way. periods of global warming in the past have been very good for humankind, and it's idiotic to seek to control somthing like climate that we have such little control over, without sending us back to the third world. _ If you end up wanting to "fix" this "Problem" energy is the number one source of carbon emissions, which allegedly lead to an increase in greenhouse gasses, which are "snowballing out of control" so you should consider finding a place that uses Hydroelectric or wind or solar....oh yeah, wind kills birds and hydroelectric floods valleys and kills animals.... hmmm.....so if we care about conservation, you're basically stuck with solar which is drastically space inefficient and is more like "energy farming" than energy generating. So really, given that it is an actual phenomenon, and it IS catastrophic, What's going to be done about it? what CAN be done about it? Side: I agree
1
point
|