We must stop Global warming
stop
Side Score: 69
|
 |
don't stop
Side Score: 68
|
|
|
|
|
Er, I agree we should do what we can to slow it down... I mean it's cool for the animals and all, but more for us. Plus programs like weatherizing homes, and clean energy technology not only would create tons of jobs, But it would also get us off the Middle East's titty, so we can start ignoring that ridiculous part of the world. Side: stop
We had energy independence, and we lost it (or it was stolen from us, or we gave it away, depending on how you look at it). -- "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years." Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM HEMP ooh look a video
Side: don't stop
1
point
Well, I think that stopping it may prove difficult now that the Baby Boomers and ex-president Bush fucked it all up, but I think attempting to slow it down is a no-brainer. The human race is pretty much doomed unless we can hold out global warming long enough to leave the planet, and more importantly, the solar system. A rather foolish question, in my opinion. Side: stop
1
point
We need to stop or slow down Global Warming. Although Global Warming effects cannot be stop now we could at least slow down the proccess of Global Warming. Now we are not really in the mood to deal with Global Warming, we have tons of problems such as recession woes and bankruptcy. If we have deal with replacement for underground oil,electricity, and water and the dreaded recession we could handle Global Warming more efficiently than dealing altogether with the problems we face now. Nobody likes Global Warming, it will cause the sea levels to raise and soon low-lying areas/countries will be flooded or even worse it will engulf that country. So it's best to stop global warming regardless of the reasons. Side: stop
"Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline. " Side: stop
Global warming is a MUST, we cannot live without the earth and there is 1 planet we know of that is capable of supporting life. We need to stop using fossil fuels and begin to explore alternative methods such as bio-fuel and wind farms. We have got NO choice in the matter, act now or we will not be able to continue life. Side: stop
We must stop it. We must think of poor animals having a har time breathing. Also I might think everyone would kno this but In north pole The ice is melting and the animals are losing their shelter. We must not think of our life only, but we must take care of animals also. Side: stop
Polar bears exhibit low reproductive rates with long generational spans, and this is why adaptation by polar bears to significantly reduced ice coverage scenarios is extremely unlikely. Polar bears did adapt to warmer climate periods of the past, obviously, as they are still around today, but due to their long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic. We're speeding up the rate of warming immensely. It's the speed of the warming, not the warming itself, that causes the problem. Side: stop
-3
points
|
1
point
What if hydrogen, or electric cars became available? How about buying a more fuel efficient car? How about car pooling? I don't know if you live in a city, but if you did would you use public transportation? Getting rid of your car is not the only way to help stop global warming. Side: stop
Again I could take the city bus ( only form of public transport ) everywhere on the buses schedule. OR I could just drive somewhere on my own schedule. Who goes carpooling to the grocery store? Buying a more fuel efficient car costs money I do not have. Besides my 99' Suzuki gets 30 mpg and I am fine with that. Side: don't stop
1
point
I'm 100% for people who want to do something about GW to go out and apply as many of these things as possible..... in their daily lives. So I support your God given right to buy a more fuel efficient car, take public transportation and anything else you feel may help.... like car pooling. I really think you should go for it ;) Side: stop
actually, even if America were to SOMEHOW end all carbon emissions it would still be a notch compared to other countries such as China and India. I wouldn't mind it though, especially since energy independence is necessary for creating more powerful weapons and fighting terrorism. Side: Red Herring
1
point
1
point
we should stay the course, becuase the earth is simply going threw a cycle that it has been going threw sence its creation, so what if we might be speeding this cycle up, if that is true then after the next ice age we will need all the extra green house gasses we can get so we can reheat the earth and not all die Side: don't stop
1
point
I want beach front property! I want the ice caps to melt and the world to flood right up to a block from my home! You people are so selfish, always thinking about yourselves! What about me? I have a right to beach front property! If you wont do it for me, do it for my kids! Do it for the children! ;) Side: don't stop
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: don't stop
we need global warming man its getting cold up in here so lets make it hot up in here! there is a resin we started it you know. and thats so hobo arent always cold. but no lets stop global warming and lets the hobos freeze. KEEP GLOBAL WARMING. DO IT FOR THE HOBOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Side: don't stop
0
points
Who says this is the optimal temperature? For one thing, I like it hot so naturally I want it to get much warmer. And for another, the result may be better than what we have now. I mean, we may lose the polar bears but they may get replaced with something way cooler.... huh..... hotter ;) Side: don't stop
1
point
the increase in warm climate that supposedly creates more hurricanes is also supposed to destroy more hurricanes much faster. if they're really CREATING more hurricanes, they should be powerful enough to destroy them before they even hit land. if they're making them stronger, they should also be making them much weaker before they hit land. Side: Red Herring
1
point
I doubt there's a danger of anyone ever listening to me ;) Once all of those "bad" things that you describe happen, then lots of people will die, less green house gasses will be released, and the cycle will reverse itself. It's not going to stay warm for ever. It's kinda like American politics, first you get 4 or 8 years of Liberal Democrats, then people come to their senses, then they lose their minds again, etc. Just like that ;) It's kinda like the circle of life thing. ;) Side: stop
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. Side: Red Herring
Senate Minority Report = Republican propaganda You can always find scientists who disagree on any issue that can't easily be demonstrated in a lab. Global warming deniers remain outside the scientific consensus. See also: Project Steve Side: stop
If you're really concerned about this (possible) catastrophic problem, doesn't it pay to consider all the options, and put aside party politics? I don't care about any party's opinion or position on it. I'd rather we as a race (humans) knew the truth, and we don't pursue that by dismissing a large body of well-educated specialists and scientists simply because we don't like the group who compiled their opinions. So, unless you're telling me that you believe that all of these 650+ scientists are being paid by industry or lobbyists to say what they are, or that they've just been duped by "Republican propaganda", your argument is hollow. The fact is that there is still much debate and question, just...it doesn't pay to debate. You can't create legislation and score political points and make money on "green technology" if we're still in the debate/experiment phase. There are millions of christians around the world right now who believe that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime, and that the world will end as we know it. They believe that those who disagree are just wrong and full of corruption & whatnot. A large body of agreement with an idea does not correlate to correctness. This is what is known as an appeal to majority. Side: don't stop
2
points
It doesn't matter who these people are, what credentials thy have, or how famous they are. There is more evidence to prove global warming than there is to disprove it. Many of your quotes do not even directly address global warming so those are irrelevant. The ones that do directly address this issue have only the person who said the quotation cited, not the direct source of the quote making verification of these "facts" impossible. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”—This is somewhat irrelevant because the greatest contributor to global warming is not any GHG, it's water vapour (because of its high specific heat capacity). Which is accentuated by your point: “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"—INCORRECT! Global Warming is an overall warming of the Earth. This doesn't mean some places will get colder. Take a trip to Canada—The Great White North is slowly becoming a Great big slush pile. Side: stop
The point I want to make is that "Global Warming" is a scientific, not a political issue. So some scientists agree that it's happening, and a subset of those scientists agree that it's unnatural and man-made, and a subset of those agree on the causal agents (CO2, etc), and a smaller subset of those agree on ways to limit or eliminate those causal factors...and large body of politicians uses these as the basis for grandstanding, new "saviour" legislation, more programs to part the people from their money, etc. But the truth is we still haven't left the scientific analysis stage, and this is all based on hypotheticals. a) Global warming is happening b) This is unnatural and potentially disastrous c) We can identify the causal agents d) We can collectively limit or eliminate the effects of the causal agents Not a very solid basis for legislation. Side: don't stop
2
points
Thank you Mr. Scientist for your very scientific opinion. I appreciate both your well argued point, and the evidence you used to support it. I understand that it must take courage to oppose every major scientific body in the entire world, and I hope that you have inspired others to do the same. Denying facts, and making up terms (clensing cycle?) all while creating an incoherent, and grammatically incorrect sentence is a feat that few can accomplish with the apparent ease you did. For that, I congratulate you. Side: Sarcasm
"The Earth has its own cycles of warming and cooling periods and unfortunately we are in the warming stage before the next ice age hits." This is true, but what you seem to be ignoring is that we are speeding up the rate of temperature increase. With a slow and stable climate adjustment, life has a chance to adapt and evolve along with the changing environment. The rate at which this is happening now though, life won't be able to keep up, and animals that have slow reproductive rates with long generational spans (such as the polar bear) are going to be greatly affected. "Al Gore just decided to use this opportunity to scare everyone and get rich off of it." For some reason, sceptics always attribute the global warming "trend" to Al Gore, in some misguided attempt at being able to futher their cause by attacking the messenger rather than the science. An Inconvenient Truth came out in 2006. However, in 1990 the first assesment report on climate change was published by the IPCC which found man-made causes to be dramatically speeding up the natural warming cycles of the earth. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released in 2004, with the observations presented showing convincing evidence of a sustained period of warm temperature anomalies in the Arctic, supported by continued reduction in sea ice extent, observed at both the winter maximum and summer minimum, and widespread changes in Arctic vegetation. "Nothing is funnier than Al having to cancel a Global Warming convention due to a snow storm warning in D.C" Understand the difference between weather and climate. "...all this for the entire Earth's water levels to rise just 3 meters... ooooo SCARY!" I don't think you quite understand the wide ranging effects it will have. Ignorance is not an excuse. Read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: stop
|
