Have you by any chance ever cracked a scientific journal to read about global warming? Because there are countless articles that make it highly probably climate change is manmade; they are peer-reviewed, sound and numerous. There is a dearth of well-written peer-reviewed articles against man-made climate change, If you have one please inform me because I have YET to read any good ones and, having been recently on your side, read several.

"Even if global warming is true, why is it such a huge problem? We as humans are incredible at adapting to different environments. "

Because it will and already is probably linked to the recent increase in droughts. Also there are many important aspects of life beside our own well-being, like the increasing speed in which coral reefs are depleting due to increased CO2 in the ocean.

"And also, the burden of proof lies with those who claim there is global warming. The ones that think it doesn't exist don't have to prove anything."

Does the burden of proof still lie on those that espouse evolution? It certainly did when Darwin released Origin, but he fulfilled his obligation alone with that screed, and now the burden of proof lies on those that deny evolution.

The same goes for climate-change; over 15 years of very good data has been published mostly pointing to the same conclusion. No longer does the burden of proof lie upon the shoulders of climatologists.

It lies on the fools who seem to be unable to get through a few journal articles.

Science deals with PROBABILITIES not certainties. What the overwhelming majority shows us is that man-made climate change is highly probable. Disputing this without any evidence is the apogee of moronia and scientific ignorance.

Beethoven.

Arguably he started Romantic Music. His theory was that music was not about the listener but solely for the composer, i.e. his own self expression.

Romanticism opened up music to limitless possibilities.

Again I'll say your view of ethics is too black and white. It's not as simple as life is good death is bad, or it's unethical to take away life not matter how insignificant. Where is the evidence?

All our knowledge of biology proves that sometimes death is good and necessary, like forest fires for healthy forest regeneration, or something as simple as thinning plants for a healthy garden.

Yes all organisms have a purpose and its a simple one: successful reproduction.

There are times where it is unethical to take plants' lives, like poorly planned agriculture that destroys its surrounding environment. There are times when it is good, like destroying harmful invasive species.

I'm curious where you have developed such an intriguing hyper-pacifism. What do you read? Are you in school?

You make good points with bad facts. The 1.2 million dead Iraqis [from 2003] is a number pulled out of the Opinion Research Poll's ass. The number is probably around than 600,000 if you colligate most of the reports, although only about 150,000 deaths are certain.

Also to say our sanctions in Iraq BEFORE 9/11 have anything to do with 9/11 is not only syllogistic but anachronistic. The sanctions only prove a point against your argument, that the Iraq war was a postponed war, and Sadaam should have been taken down long before 9/11.

No doubt Iraq was an utter failure and the war in Afghanistan is really an endless catch 22 against self-replicating apparitions. But what are our other options?

To step back and try to understand why??? Your argument falls apart when you state Iraq and Afghanistan as a low hanging fruit; clearly the 10 year occupation of the latter makes it more of unattainable poisonous fruit instead of an easy target or a "carte blanche to cut up the middle east."

"The response to 9/11 only enforced the bully-boy imperialist narratives constantly labelled against the US, and blooded and new line of Bin Ladens."

No doubt I can agree with that but I cannot think of any reasonable alternative than our action. It was a gamble we took and we lost.

"Ive been absolutely amazed at how corporate power in the US have successfully twisted the reality of anthropogenic warming."

Just to emphasize how moronic our opposition is and to revise your statement, Most corporate powers, especially oil companies, DON'T twist the facts about global warming. Corporations have sectors devoted entirely to dealing with the climate issue, specifically investing in alternative fuels and improving efficiency. True their motives are primarily economical, but they aren't foolish enough to go on parading false claims about climate change.

To deny man-made climate change is no longer opposing environmental groups, hippies and climatologists; it is to deny decisions made by the majority of governments and corporations.

To oppose such formidable opponents requires an amazingly good argument which no denialist has Ever had, especially ones as foolish to call global warming "hogwash."

This is tautological. Defense is a euphemism for military. We changed the name of military spending from I believe the "Department of War" to the Department of Defense in Truman's term, so defense obviously is military spending.

Well since we already own Canada that wouldn't change much. As for Britain? sure why not but they have to switch to the dollar, I'm not using that quid crap. ;)

How old are you? I'm just curious.

This is a degree of pacifism that in order to adhere to requires suicide. Why debate such frivolities? Are all herbivores now immoral because they might kill a few plants in their rummaging? Is the hawk immoral for killing a mouse? Or is it just us humans, because we have developed ethics so only we are unethical?

And to split hairs with your opening, walking on healthy grass never kills it. It's called groundcover, each individual blade is not a plant; a single plant could encompass several feet.

You should create debates about more intelligible ethical dilemmas, like cutting down the rainforest for soy plantations, or over-harvesting peat bogs, or killing rhinos for penis pills.

But a debate about plant based products being unethical solely because they require us killing the organism?

Wow. Did you guys even read the articles?

There are four things the IPCC screwed up on. And since Al Gore's facts were either corrected or disproven long ago, this proves to be sad reporting skills for an article published just days ago. NOWHERE in EITHER article is there skepticism to manmade climate change.

The second article has absolutely nothing to do with exaggerating climate change. It just says deep oceans can absorb some heat.

"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," Trenberth says. "The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."

The climate is hard to predict. Scientists are bound to fuck some of it up, but does four mistakes by the IPCC mean all climate change is exaggerated and humans aren't a source?

To be a denialist, as you are, requires an enormous capacity to be willfully ignorant to the mountains of evidence published by just Science and Nature alone every year. But shit... I guess if that helps you get up in the morning.

I feel like your oversimplifying morality. From a utilitarian perspective sacrificing any life for the ensured wellness of a great many more is always the moral choice. Doing nothing, or balking at the choice to sacrifice fewer lives can bring about unintended consequences and a great many more lives lost.

Morality is often not black and white. The are instances when it is moral to lie, manipulate, and even kill as it is in relationships, relationships, and war (unfortunately not also relationships) - respectively.

Although I laud your response to my somewhat fallacious reductio ad absurdum, I still believe you are suffering from a myopic moral certainty. And I'll let H.L. Mencken finish my argument:

Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on I am not too sure.