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.
So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
If there's one thing politicians rely on, is you forgetting the last scam they tried to put on the American people. I remember clearly the 'Next Ice Age' is coming scare in the '70's. Now, I can see it for what it was then and what the whole global warming issue is now.
Here is a couple of articles from the '70's of the coming 'Ice Age' and how man is the evil behind it.
Here is one from....should I say?....ok..I will....Time Magazine in 1974
Why on earth would I read an article from the 1970s about a modern scientific problem? Yeah, scientists are wrong sometimes. This was also never, to my knowledge, a "consensus" which was acted upon like global warming is. It's not a "scam".
The website you recommended is so strongly in favor of the existence of GW, to the point that some of the language used is meant to ridicule those that are not convinced.
Instead of focusing on the evidence that proves GW, this website is dedicated to disproving "the excuses" brought up by the "deniers".
This bias and separation of the masses into "deniers" and "those who care" is extremely unhelpful and borderline dangerous.
The evidence for global warming is in the first 8 points. It defends global warming throughout the rest of the article. You tagged your article as "Nope, never did", so could you explain which of those 8 points you disagree with?
I don't understand how you found that article "borderline dangerous". That sounds awfully hyperbolic to me.
The 8 points have been put next to each other to prove a point. However, all they prove is a correlation, not causation. If you don't understand the difference then there is not point debating.
Most of those arguments are based on selective observation, cherry picking and the enumeration of favorable circumstances. Because according to the NCDC (sited in those arguments), the natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) is mainly achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean.
This causal reductionism tries to use one cause to explain something, when in fact it has several causes.
You said: "This is backed up by correlation". I'm pretty sure you don't understand the fallacy of that statement, so I'll try and help you.
Confusing correlation and causation:
"When sales of hot chocolate go up, street crime drops." Does this correlation mean that hot chocolate prevents crime? No. It means that fewer people are on the streets when the weather is cold.
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it can give you a clue. If your water tastes funny and you get sick the next day, the best guess would be that the water made you sick. But you wouldn't know for sure until you got the water tested.
In the case of global warming, we have causation through the well understood greehhouse effect. The other correlative evidence only makes the case more likely.
We can never definitively prove global warming because we can't test the entire planet in a laboratory. We have to do a rough cost/benefit analysis based on imperfect data.
On one hand we have the cost of passing legislation that has a small chance of being unnecessary. On the other hand we have highly probable crop failure on a massive scale among other potential consequences. Do you honestly think the risk of the former outweighs the latter?
Because according to the NCDC (sited in those arguments), the natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) is mainly achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean.
Got a citation for this? And can you explain why it's important?
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it can give you a clue. If your water tastes funny and you get sick the next day, the best guess would be that the water made you sick. But you wouldn't know for sure until you got the water tested.
What you described has nothing to do with correlation. You can test the water and prove definitely that it was the cause of the sickness.
Correlation goes a bit like this (example): "When hot chocolate sales go up, crime goes down". So there is a correlation between hot chocolate and crime. But is the hot chocolate the cause of the reduction in crime? No. It's more likely that the sales of hot chocolate increase during cold weather, and because of the cold weather more people stay at home, and therefore there is less crime outside. So the real cause to the reduction of crime is not the hot chocolate, but the cold weather.
That's why you can't use correlation to substantiate a claim. Especially one as grand as global warming.
In the case of global warming, we have causation through the well understood greenhouse effect. The other correlative evidence only makes the case more likely.
The only thing we know is the cause of the greenhouse effect. But you can't prove that humans are responsible for the supposed increase in those gases because the oceans produce a lot more CO2 than we do. The only way the supporters can get to that conclusion is by purposeful causal reduction (i.e. ignore the oceans) and by pretending that correlation is enough to support causation. The tragedy is that average Joe doesn't understand the difference.
I'm afraid, "likely", isn't a good enough reason to be taxing people further than they already pay.
We can never definitively prove global warming because we can't test the entire planet in a laboratory. We have to do a rough cost/benefit analysis based on imperfect data.
Ditto! Thank you. Thank you so very much for standing up and admitting to it. You have no idea how much more I respect you now. I am tiered of people telling me that Global Warming has been definitely proven when it obviously hasn't.
On one hand we have the cost of passing legislation that has a small chance of being unnecessary. On the other hand we have highly probable crop failure on a massive scale among other potential consequences. Do you honestly think the risk of the former outweighs the latter?
That's the definition of scare tactics, i.e. we have no proof, but let's proceed anyway, just in case... The chance of the legislation being unnecessary is not small. It's at least 50/50. Also think about this. If the Global Warming theory is wrong, then those crops are still doomed because we will have focused on just one thing, when in fact the cause could be something completely different.
And if you think that the money raised by these new taxes is going to be used on anything remotely related to the environment you are being blind by choice.
Got a citation for this? And can you explain why it's important?
It's important because if there is a greater source of CO2 on the planet then that changes the whole argument presented by the supporters. How do we know that the oceans are not producing more CO2 than they used to? How do we know this is not a natural long term cycle they go through? Can you prove that they are incapable of absorbing this extra CO2?
Also... please note a very very important part of that paragraph sited. First the site tells us that CO2 concentration on the atmosphere used to be 280ppm and now it is 370ppm. On first look this sounds shocking.
But then they continue by explaining that CO2 concentration measures change according to seasons. In the summer there is more vegetation and more CO2 converted to oxygen by plants. But in the winter all those plants release more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Why does the site not tell us which season was the first measure of 280ppm taken, and which season was the second one of 370ppm taken? Would it make a difference if the first measure was taken in the summer and the second in the winter? Of course it would!
See, little things like that, and you can have the public blinded at the snap of a finger...
Why does the site not tell us which season was the first measure of 280ppm taken, and which season was the second one of 370ppm taken? Would it make a difference if the first measure was taken in the summer and the second in the winter?
No, it really wouldn't. If you had read the article for content, rather than for attackable points, you would have noticed this graph. The seasonal variation is evident in the sawtooth nature of the graph, and is almost completely irrelevant with regard to the evident upward trend. The same data is also presented in this graph, with the data points apparently representing the yearly average (it wouldn't really matter if they were the yearly highs or lows, though)
Here you can see a more detailed example of the seasonal variation, which has a range of roughly 4 ppm over the entire year (~1%). This means that even adjusting for the most duplicitous possible represenation of the data (taking the minimum for the lower number and maximum for the higher) in such a way as to minimize the difference (shifting them both by 4 points toward each other) the numbers would only change from 280 and 370 to about 284 and 366. That's still a 29% increase. And it's far more likely that the 280 and 370 numbers represent annual averages, which means an average increase of 32%. From raw data, here, you can see that the annual maximum concentration in any given year is lower than the annual minimum three years later.
As for it being a natural cycle, the Vostok Ice Core data does show a cyclic nature over the last 400,000 years. However, the amount of climb that we've seen in the last 200 years "normally" takes upwards of 50,000 years to occur, and that natural cycle appears to peak at about 300 ppm, which is well below the 390 ppm of today.
If the earth is capable of producing and handling 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today over millions of years, then we have enough time to lay down some rational plans with regards to our technology. Regardless of what I think about Global Warming I am not against making things cleaner. What I am against, is this rushed attitude of "the world is coming to an end" "let's tax everybody" "stop those damn Chinese".
I'd like to see how those records prove how much CO2 is produced by humans and how much is produced by the oceans and other natural sources.
So far as I can tell, it's primarily just the rapidity of the production increase; a sudden acceleration in CO2 levels which coincides with the industrial revolution. Yes, it's correlative evidence, but it's hard to get causal data on something like this.
500 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 20 times higher than today, and we weren't around.
First, CO2 data from that long ago is purely estimate, based on proxy dating methods, which is why I focused on the ice-core data. Those numbers are still valid, but have a much larger error-envelope.
Secondly, while it is true that the Earth can handle much larger levels of CO2, and that life can survive—even flourish—under those conditions, the concern now is, again, with the rapidity with which the levels are changing. The levels hundreds of millions of years ago changed very slowly, taking tens of millions of years to reach those levels, and tens of millions of years to drop again. This provided adequate time for life to adapt to the different environment. If the current rate of increase (approximately +1.5ppm / year) continues, it would take less than 2000 years to get back up to 3000 ppm. If, instead, the current percent rate of increase (~0.4% / year), it would take less than 250 years. The potentially frightening thing, though, is that the rate of increase itself appears to be increasing (up from ~0.5 ppm/year or 0.002% / year in 1959).
Whether or not Global Warming is real, which I believe it is and that it and it's symptoms effect the world in many ways, I still would rather be safe than sorry.
It is not hard to live environmentally, only inconvenient.
The one thing that is certain is that our resources are finite and if we don't conserve them, we won't need Global Warming to kill us...
Geeze Jake, does it always have to be a political thing in your world? There's nothing at all wrong with conservation...never was, never will be. So what if Al Gore brought this to our attention...it would have been just as valid had any Republican done the homework. Outside of Al Gore, I don't know what this could possibly have to do with politics.
... so when I recycle the DNC get's a tithe or something?
You're a very confused young man Jake.
btw, if the democratic party were to as a whole (it actually doesn't work that way with dems, they fight amongst themselves on everything) but pretend they all got together and said we're all going to agree on this no matter what science says because we need more votes...
the smart thing from a strictly vote getting perspective would be to completely ignore the situation, or deny it like a lot of Republicans (also btw, there are plenty of republicans who have pulled their head out of the sand long enough to realize it's a real issue as well, anyway)
because if you break it down by issue, dems would still win the majority of the environmental vote because of like every other issue outside of the environment.
Then there's the millions upon millions upon millions any polical figure stands to lose in big energy donations. Big energy is the biggest or close to the biggest political contributor in the world Jake. Nearly every "study" that says Global Warming is a farce comes from big energy, big energy pours money into the RNC coffers like it's going out of style, they do everything in their power to distract from or deny global warming.
There is soooooo much more money in being a global warming denier if you're a politician.
So this conspiracy you have makes no sense on any level. There is literally nothing to be gained by going along with conservation, all of the power and all of the money is with big energy. The only excuse one would have is if they thought it was true.
Which science says it is.
But hey, there's people who still think the earth is flat and 6000 years old,
so who is it that would rather be smart than stupid?
Nearly every "study" that says Global Warming is a farce comes from big energy, big energy pours money into the RNC coffers like it's going out of style, they do everything in their power to distract from or deny global warming.
SEE?, it's those evil money making capitalists right! They want to get rich and destroy the world at the same time don't they!?
It goes hand in hand with voting democrat. Don't you see?
Way to miss the point completely. The point is, there is nothing to be gained by anyone for faking global warming. There is everything to be gained by just pretending it does not exist. So why on earth would someone just make it up?
The fact is, scientists noticed from coral and other natural phenomenon, that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. These are predictable. However, mysteriously since the industrial revolution, the earth has begun to warm, overall and over a shorter amount of time, then anytime in the history of corral reefs.
Then they figured out that CO2 in the air determines the amount of greenhouse gasses that are trapped on earth.
Then they found out that the amount of CO2 we have been putting out since the industrial revolution explains perfectly why we have had greater warming than ever in the entire history of corral reefs since exactly when the industrial revolution began.
Now keep in mind, we're talking over millions and millions and millions of years there is no evidence of the earth warming as fast as it is now, since exactly when the industrial revolution began.
You have two choices when faced with these facts.
1. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalala"
2. You can be mature enough to realize we are having a negative effect on the environment we all have to live in, and try to do something about it.
It's a lot bigger than democrat or republican. Unfortunately though there are a lot more republicans in the pockets of big energy which is why, poor suckers like yourself are still being lead by the tail into believing there's no such thing.
Well fine, don't believe it if it makes you happy. I still think the Cubs are gonna win the penant every year, I realize rooting for the home team is almost an instinct.
But to continue that analogy, how about if instead of stomping your feet and yelling "lalalalalala" you guys get on the side of science for a change? Like, I hate Alex Rodriquez, but if he is wearing a Cubs uniform next year I'll probably change my mind.
Wow Jake, care to back up your statements with some facts.
I already argued told you this once, but apparently I have to repeat myself: THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. The only person who is acting stupid here is you, because you are denying the myriad scientific evidence that supports the fact that humans are causing significant climate change. Whether it's democrats or republicans who support legislation to stop global warming shouldn't matter, because none of that has any effect on the actual science of climate change.
Please, when you have actual facts to support your case that global warming/climate change isn't being caused by humans then get back to me. Until then maybe you should stop politicizing scientific issues... it's detrimental to us all.
You do the exact same thing, you just usually win the argument.(that doesnt mean you are right) Which is easy to do when you are on the side of the majority.
Thank you for at least admitting that I'm not acting stupid.
If you would like to give me some examples that would be awesome. (For you I'd give the examples of this subject, marijuana legalization, and evolution). Also, haven't you heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."
Which is easy to do when you are on the side of the majority
Don't complain persecution, or that you are the repressed minority. On this site each argument has the same opportunity to present the facts, and make their case. It's one thing when the issues are subjective (like economics or religion), but on certain topics there is a right answer, and what I was complaining about is the fact that you tend to ignore these facts.
Having the majority agree with one of us should have very little effect on our arguments. It's the content that's important. Maybe you should stop listening to Glen Beck and his "us vs. them" (whoever "they" are) mentality. (I know you've gotten pissy about comments like this before so let me clarify: this is a suggestion not a demand, or order)
You refused to agree that smoking is severely bad for your health, I remember you saying something like: "it's not that bad for you, if you only smoke like once a month". Trying to dodge around the fact that it's unhealthy. And the almost mutual opinion that it's a stupid thing to do, why would you start!?!?: "oh my friends are smoking pot, I'm just doing it with them" [paraphrasing]
And with evolution I had the humility to say that I wasn't informed enough and proceeded to back out of the debate. I guess you saw that as an easy target.
On this site each argument has the same opportunity to present the facts, and make their case.
Yeah but the majority of the people using this site, or at least the heavy users, are global warming believing liberals, that usually disagree with me. I'm not complaining, I was only stating that FACT so that the credit would not go to you.
It's harder to make a post when you know you are about to get multiple disputes, from multiple people.
Having the majority agree with one of us should have very little effect on our arguments. It's the content that's important.
That is true.
Maybe you should stop listening to Glen Beck and his "us vs. them" (whoever "they" are) mentality.
I like Glenn Beck, with him, "they" usually refers to the people that are endangering the country. He's not a hater, he just loves his country, make fun if you want I don't care.
(I know you've gotten pissy about comments like this before so let me clarify: this is a suggestion not a demand, or order)
"You refused to agree that smoking is severely bad for your health"
He probably said that because it isn't. Okay so here's what we'll do I'll post the largest study on marijuana and cancer ever done by one of the best medical schools in the country that found no connection between regular, heavy marijuana use and cancer and then it will be your turn: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Here's the meat of it if you're lazy:
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Sorry I must have read that wrong. Did he say suggestion of some protective effect??? I thought marijuana instantly gave you AIDS, cancer, cavities, ringworms, vaginitis, and deleted half your brain and turned you into a criminal.
I invite you to post a peer reviewed study by a reputable institution that smoking marijuana CAUSES cancer. I want to be sure I make this clear. Every time I say this someone shows me a study that found that marijuana smoke has chemicals that are carcinogens. Find a study that found a link between smoking marijuana and developing cancer. That means they needed to take a bunch of people and compare the cancer rates for smokers and non-smokers. One study is all I ask. I can probably find you as many as you want that did not find an association so I will just ask you to find one.
"I like Glenn Beck, with him, "they" usually refers to the people that are endangering the country. He's not a hater, he just loves his country, make fun if you want I don't care."
Just letting you know your justification of Glenn Beck could be applied to the KKK. "They don't like people who are endangering the country. They don't hate African-Americans, Jews, gays etc, they just love their country."
Just letting you know your justification of Glenn Beck could be applied to the KKK. "They don't like people who are endangering the country. They don't hate African-Americans, Jews, gays etc, they just love their country."
That's funny because I don't remember saying he explicitly does. I never said he is the same as the KKK.
And while he may not explicitly provoke violence, he does it implicitly. By creating division and strong feelings of hatred toward people he disagrees with through exaggeration and appeals to strong emotion, he creates a greater likelihood of violence. Look at what happened to Dr. Tiller. Bill O'Reilly had been talking about him calling him a murderer and a baby killer, and it turns out the killer was an avid O'Reilly factor viewer.
I am not saying Glenn Beck is simply dangerous because he has an ideological position. The problem is like andsoccer says that he makes very emotional rants that appeal to a bad part of human psychology. He activates the ingroup/outgroup method of thinking in people that leads to divisiveness and violence.
Keith Olberman - Don't watch him or cable, for-profit news
Bill Maher - I liked religious, have seen his tv show once or twice it was funny.
The View - I might have seen in while flipping channels. Correct me if I wrong, but is it not just a bunch of idiots who think they are experts on every subject they talk about?
So no I am not a fan of any of that. I don't buy into the whole Left vs. Right war. I want news, not partisan commentary. Just tell me what happened, not your opinion.
I mentioned Bill O'Reilly because he is similar to Glenn Beck and I could point to an example where he caused violence.
There is "scientific evidence" for a lot of things.
I know a lot of very smart people, non of them think global warming is happening. But I'm not a parrot, I have studied this a lot.
The reason I brought up Democrats is because, them and the liberal media are the ones saying: "it's their fault, it's those Chevy suburban driving republicans, get them!" [paraphrasing of course]
Also, I don't think policy, or law should be formed around such a controversial subject. Besides even if it was happening we would still have to deal with China.
"Environmentalists like to say that the solution to global warming is for every person to do his or her part. The truth is that their ideas about how we should all do that are almost always symbolic gestures that do nothing to actually change CO2 emissions. So let me try to put this into perspective for you. Just the increase in coal that China will burn by 2020 will send as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions, each driven 15,000 miles a year. The increased burning of one source of energy by one country is equal to the CO2 emissions from 3 billion giant Ford Expedition SUVs. At its current pace, it would take Ford 15,000 years even to sell that many."
Glenn Beck
Sometimes fact can be kind of, ...detrimental, wouldn't you say? (;
That's what evidence is...facts. Your issue seems to be with how I'm interpretting the facts. So let's make this debate easier and lay them out on the table.
1. The earth is warming.
2. This warming is unprecedented in recent history.
3. This warming is being caused by greenhouse gasses.
4. Humans are putting out significantly more greenhouse gasses than is natural.
Okay, so now we have the facts. If there are any of these that you dispute, please say so, so that we can debate the evidence.
The reason I brought up Democrats is because, them and the liberal media are the ones saying: "it's their fault, it's those Chevy suburban driving republicans, get them!" [paraphrasing of course]
I'm pretty sure that you have been watching way to much FAUX news. What the media is showing is that a) a lot of people in the U.S. drive SUVs (democrats and republicans, I drive an FJ Cruiser) and b) that it is contributing to global warming.
None of this, however, has anything to do with global warming.
Ignoring the hypocrisy of you saying "I'm not a parrot" and then quoting Glen Beck, I'm happy that you finally presented some evidence. My only suggestion would be that Glen Beck is not a scientist and, therefore not a very trust worthy source. In addition we have 3 hundred million people in this country each driving an average of about 15,000 miles a year. This still doesn't add up to Glen Becks numbers, but then again I'm not sure how much I trust Beck's numbers.
Either way, if a significant number of Americans conserved fuel it would still make an impact.
You are also arguing that we need to get China involved in the effort to cut back on greenhouse gasses... and I completely agree! And guess what Obama is doing?
In order to convince other nations to cut back on greenhouse gasses, however, we have to show that we are serious about it first. America should be the moral leader on all things, and this is no exception.
Also, I don't think policy, or law should be formed around such a controversial subject.
It's not controversial in the scientific community, only in the sphere of public opinion. Every major scientific body is in agreement that humans are causing global warming. Does that sound very controversial?
Now time for the website.
Obviously I can't go through every single argument in the entire site and tell you why it's wrong, so how about we do this. I'll choose a random one, and then you choose one and I'll prove to you why they're both poor arguments. Deal?
Me first:
I choose the sea ice argument, which can be read here and here.
So the argument is, sea ice in the north pole has increased back to the level it was at 1980, so therefore there can't be any warming occurring, and the whole global warming thing is a hoax.
The problem with this argument is that it only deals with the area of ice and not the volume. Take this time to look back at the website so that you can see what I'm talking about. You will also notice that it takes the readings from January, when the ice sheets are at their maximum after having refrozen. In the summer, the thinner ice melts faster, meaning that readings from the summer months would be more indicative of the overall amount of ice in the polar caps.
When we look at the volume of ice we see that the ice sheets are in fact getting thinner. The amount of perennial ice has been decreasing despite the fact that the area of ice in the winter months is about the same as it was in 1980.
The source I have is not an overtly biased site with questionable facts, but the National Snow and Ice Center. Their website is here and here is a graph from them that shows the area of arctic ice year round, as opposed to just the winter month.
I know a lot of very smart people, non of them think global warming is happening.
Well, I'm guessing that none of them are climatoligists. It's not their fault, but I'm guessing that they just don't know all the facts. Chances are they have heard a lot of misinformation from sources they trust (not unlike you). However, those smart people who do study the facts have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that global warming is happening, and that it is being caused by humans. Maybe, you can even be the one to show them that they are wrong.
So Jake, let me repeat, it doesn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican...the facts don't care about your ideology. You clearly just went to the first site you found that disputed global warming and linked to it, without reviewing the facts. Well I have reviewed the facts. I'm kind of a science nerd. I read articles and watch videos about the subject in my spare time (really geeky, I know). If you want to know more check out this really interesting youtube channel. On it, a lot of myths about global warming are debunked. Here is a from the channel about the ice sheets:
You say that a lot of "smart" people don't believe in global warming...hmmm...., maybe it has to do with DejaMoo (the feeling that you've heard this bull before :).
I watched the video and the thing is that I don't believe long haired scientists. He looks like a long haired, pot smoking, hippie from the 60's. Not much credibility there :)
Then all those swirling color remind me of a psychedelic trip.
Also, I don't trust cute, female scientists. She was talking but all I could think of was the methane she was producing ;)
The Chinese would have been more believable if he hadn't blinked so much ;)
The last guy says what I've been saying all along.... there are too many people on the planet, lets start taking them out! Well, he didn't say the last part but... ;)
The environement we live in effects all people, not just democrats. I don't care who conserves, just that it happens.
This is not a democratic issue, it's a human issue.
I think we've had this conversation before. I'd like you to refer back to our previous conversation on global warming. If, after rereading that, you still have questions, I will be glad to clear anything up for you.
The Time magazine article got it half-right, but is a misinterpretation of the then evidence. I also first started reading about Global warming and the "Greenhouse effect" in the early 1970s in, I think, Science Fiction magazines. The increase of global temperatures is unprecedented and even if the most drastic action were taken now will continue for at least twenty years due to a lag effect. Remember that soot and other aerosols pumped into the atmosphere actually have a cooling effect so the problem is even worse than thermometers show. Global warming at its current rate will (WILL, not may) displace the Greenland ice shelf. This will displace the Gulf stream (or "Atlantic conveyor") causing a DECREASE in average temperatures in Northern Europe and the reduced salinility of the North Atlantic will also do for what is left of fish stocks. A mass melting of the arctic permafrost may release methane that will trigger an irreversible runaway effect--it has happened before, but it was nature alone not human engineered.
The warmer tropical waters ofthe mid-Atlantic will increase the hurricane count and are likely to make New York as popular a target as Florida.
Most of the Ross Ice Shelf is on its way North right now, in about a decade its remnants will hit the Bengula and Mozambique currents to recreate the coast to coast african desert that existed 20,000 years ago.
So many policticians seem to want to ignore any problem that stretches beyond their period of elected office that they may just end up like the inhabitants of Mohenjo-daro.
Why would I choose to disregard scientific evidence of a phenomenon? This is like asking, "do you believe in rainbows?" Of course I believe global warming is real.
The real question is whether or not human beings are primarily responsible for global warming, to which I would also answer yes. Although volcanic activity and other natural occurrences can account for a small percentage of the rise in CO2 emissions, they can hardly account for the total.
However, even if humans are not primarily responsible, if there are actions that we are taking that contribute to the rise in CO2 levels, then we have a responsibility to curtail those actions.
We should not forget that the "purpose" of supporting a view that the earth's temperatures are rising is mainly to alter our behavior in favor of the environment. Whether or not we find conclusive evidence supporting the temperature change, it is almost indisputable that CO2 emissions are not good for the environment on which our survival depends on.
The arguments against global warming seem to come mainly from big industry, or from those groups who refuse to change the status quo.
We need to change, whether we think that global warming is the main reason or not, the conclusion remains the same.
Global Warming is 50% man made, 50% natural. I still say we need to get off OIL and move to cleaner sources of energy and stop treating the only planet we have the only home we have as a giant waste-basket. We need to start protecting our planet and our environment around us and stop thinking about ourselves all the time and only the here and now. We need to think long term for our childrens future and make the world a better place. We can at least make the planet less toxic and hazardous for our children by stopping nuclear waste and weapons and stop ripping up our landscape.. - stop killing off species, and stop polluting our atomosphere making people sick. Its time to change our ways whether or not there is global warming. I still say there is some global warming ---though maybe not to the degree that Al Gore claims, we still should get away from Oil and I believe part of the reason we haven't seen as many effects from global warming is because we have begun to change our lifestyle and develop alternate methods of energuy.
there are also controversies these days that global warming is fake due to these decreasin temperatures..but technically, it is the effects of the global warming since the glaciers are melting down..and whatever..the temperature of earth has increased by about 3 degrees celcius..so if u literally see it, the temperature has increased globally --> global warming!
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.
Well..., since global warming is created by too many people releasing too many green house gasses into the atmosphere, I propose reducing the world's population ;)
Exactly, why not? If there's already evidence of ozone layer depletion allowing more heat, then global warming is also quite a believable theory as well.
For a long time, I have been anticipating the point when "money" is brought into the game.
I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig. I was hoping that he would have his 15 minutes of fame with his earth saving documentary and then hopefully leave us alone.
But I must also admit that there has been some good out of this, and that is the fact that car companies are now looking into new engines, hybrids etc etc. That's great!
But then ManBearPig wanted more...
New taxes. The minute I heard how much money Al Gore is going to make by taxing us on ManBearPig was the minute that every single shred of doubt about this being a lie vanished.
So what should we do instead?? What if it's true? What if ManBearPig is real and coming to get us?!
I have a suggestion.
Instead of taxing the lowest denominator, the individual, how about we focus on the technology and the manufacturers.
How about we go to the car manufacturers and say "You got 10 years, to come up with an engine that produces half the CO2, achieves double the miles per gallon, and can run on a fuel that is abundant in nature. Here is $100 million towards the research, and there will be another £100 million for you if you are the first manufacturer to achieve this goal". You say this to all car manufacturers and then sit back and watch them deliver the goods. Instead of spending the $100 million on a week in Iraq, make it an incentive. Make it a prize, and watch how quickly we get results.
You can do this with airlines as well. Instead of taxing the passengers, why not put the pressure on the manufacturing companies to come up with cleaner engines? And then give the airlines incentives for buying the new engines, like lower airport taxes for a set of years.
Or how about this. How did I not think about this before!
Use the talent show formula to find new scientists! Think about it.
"America's Got Talented Scientists". The prize is one million dollars, and each contestant or group of scientists has to create a new environmentally friendly engine. Voila! In just one season you have a new engine!
I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig.
Well that's understandable, because Al Gore is not a scientist; however, you should listen to the real climate scientists who have shown, through tremendous amounts of evidence, that:
1. The earth is warming
2. This warming is unprecedented, and unnatural (a.k.a. at a rate never witnessed before in nature)
3. The warming is predominately being caused by greenhouse gasses
4. Human activity in the last 100 years has been the primary cause of greenhouse gasses
5. If humans to continue to emit greenhouse gasses at our current rate, the effects on our planet will be dire (massive crop failures, and extinctions due to increased aridity)
You are complaining about the money Al Gore makes from this, but to be honest, I don't give a shit about him. He helped to put global warming more in the public's awareness, but at the same time increased the politicalness(?) of the issue. His movie, was in general correct, aside from a few minor exaggerations and errors; however, as I said before none of this should matter. What matters is the actual science.
How we address the issue can obviously be up for debate, and the ideas you proposed seemed like good ones; however the important thing is that we do something. Otherwise we will go down in history as the generation that sat back and did nothing as the earth went to ruin.
(By the way, I love South Park, but this is one issue that got wrong...and I'm super serial about that)
What I agree with, is the fact that some goodness/progress has come out of this. I always thought that we have spent too much time in the age of the combustion engine. There are so many other ideas out there that need to be explored. The GW movement, has indeed provided a "reason" for us to make some progress.
But let's not confuse that, with whether GW is actually happening or not.
For the past couple of years, the media have adopted a whole terminology and an attitude of "indisputability" towards GW. If the time spent on selling the idea of GW was spent instead on explaining the evidence in detail to the public, then we would have a much fairer debate. The problem now is that you have to go looking for the evidence, cause the news is only informing you of the measures we are taking to combat this threat. Naturally, a lot of people will be pissed off at the fact that we are taking measures, even though the theory has not been proved in their minds.
After watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, you will find that a lot of the "scientific consensus" has been fabricated. The sheer fact that the evidence is in dispute should be reason enough to not take any measures yet. No court will ever make a decision on a case that is substantiated by disputable evidence.
Look, all I am saying is this. Some people are convinced, others don't really care, and others care but are not convinced. To then introduce a new tax measure that will affect all three of these groups indiscriminately, is a travesty of dictatorial proportions.
Just because the cause is noble does NOT justify the means...
Like I said in my previous post: It does NOT MATTER if Global Warming is happening or not. We have been due a progress with regards to new technology for some time now. If we are concerned about the future then by all means, take measures WHERE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
Taxing individuals is making matters worse because what that says is that, the technology and choice that people have will remain the same, but from now on we will punish people for making certain choices. So the Arabs still make their trillions. The car companies are not pressured to invent new technology. And average Joe is the only one to foot the bill for "saving the earth".
If the financial crisis hadn't happened, I'm pretty sure we would have had a new tax by now already.
This movement has settled so persistently into the media terminology and agenda that I now believe it is pointless to debate if it exists or not. Those that are not convinced are now called "deniers" and there is no longer space for debate, especially given the fact that the "deniers" are seen as enemies to a noble cause.
So the only thing that matters now is the kind of measures we are going to take. Our duty as citizens is to make sure no one pulls the wool over our eyes. And in this case, I think those "deniers" will prove to be very helpful in making sure the "believers" are not screwed by their governments.
The internet is an amazing tool. You can find out information about whatever you want within seconds, so please do not complain that the public hasn't been educated... anyone with a computer and an internet connection can find out information easily.
Now, I think I have found one of the reasons you have an issue with GW. The source you quoted (The Great Global Warming Swindle) is an extremely poor one. Before this debate proceeds any farther I think you should watch this video debunking the intellectual dishonesty presented by the creators of that movie. You will find gross misrepresentations of the facts, and in some cases, outright lies.
I have personally seen that the Glacier on Kilimanjaro has all but gone. The one on the Spitzberg is 300 Metres higher than it was in 1936. The North West passage is now navigable after 500 years of trying, the Ross ice shelf is breaking up -- so how come its a 'swindle' ? The anti-innoculation movement (against smallpox) lasted well into the 20th Century in America too!
Wow, that's surprising that a reputed scientific journal would post something about an ice age...wait, Time isn't a reputed scientific journal?
The truth is, even during this brief time of cooling there were still more scientists concerned about global warming than global cooling. Climate deniers jumped on this article despite the fact that it was poorly researched, and didn't reflect the view of the scientific community.
In addition, we have much better ways of measuring the effects we have on climate then we did in the 70's.
So the answer is yes the earth does go through processes of hot and cold naturally...but the current warming is not natural at all.
They did say that global cooling was the result of pollution back then. If there was so much evidence mounting for global warming were we tricked into thinking it didn't matter? If I may ask Soc, why do you think global warming is not as natural as global cooling, or the present warming anyway?
I never said global cooling was natural, I said that very few scientists supported the idea that it was happening.
Reading over my argument I can see quite a few mistakes in typing so allow me to try to explain myself again.
There was a period of time, during this century (from 1940-1970) that the temperature began to show a slightly downward trend. A few scientists interpreted saw this and believed that there was global cooling occurring. During this same time however many more scientists were concerned about a global warming despite the fact that there was a general cooling trend. This means that global cooling was never really accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community.
You then ask why global warming is taken more seriously. Well my answer to that is that in the 1970's, climate science was still in it's infancy. Since that time however our ability to predict the climate, and calculate our effects on the environment has increased dramatically. In addition, we have started to see a warming trend that is very much unlike the modest cooling trend in the middle of this century. Please refer to this graph to see what I'm talking about. As you can see, the average temperature has increased dramatically this century. If you want a bigger picture, see this so called hockey-stick graph which shows average temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. Clearly, the evidence shows a warming, and not a cooling.
Finally, you ask why this can't be natural. Well, we know that greenhouse gasses keep our planet warm, and in fact we need a certain amount of greenhouse gasses in order to have a livable climate. However, when you compare the amount of greenhouse gasses that are created naturally (by organisms and other sources such as volcanoes) to the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted by humans, and then look at the global temperatures which I showed you, then it becomes obvious that what is happening is the direct result of human activity.
All the points you made are based on correlation and causal reduction, which are both argumental fallacies.
Global Warming is the modern day definition of Pious Fraud, and how you can convince a crowd by persistent repetition and fear mongering, despite the lack of proper evidence.
All the points you made are based on correlation and causal reduction, which are both argumental fallacies.
Not at all. There are numerous different reasons why scientists know that greenhouse gasses are the cause of global warming, and almost none of them have to do with the fact that there is a current correlation between temperature and CO2. My somewhat simplistic explanation of the science behind global warming was merely as a way to convey the basic ideas behind the theory.
First, we know that greenhouse gasses do influence the temperature based on the physical characteristics of the gasses themselves. Allow me to explain.
Our planet is made up mostly of Nitrogen (78%) a significant amount of oxygen (21%) with some other gasses such as water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide making up the remaining one percent.
Sunlight enters the atmosphere as relatively short wave radiation (visible and UV light) and when it hits the ground, it is emitted as long wave radiation (infrared radiation, a.k.a. heat). The gasses in our atmosphere allow short wave radiation to pass through relatively easily (this is why we can see through air).
Long wave radiation also passes readily through both nitrogen and oxygen, however, it is absorbed by the three latter gasses I mentioned (water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide). When the long wave radiation hit's these gasses, it causes them to heat up and warm the atmosphere.
This is, in general, a good thing because otherwise the long wave radiation would merely bounce off the earth and go into space, meaning that our earth would be a much colder place.
The opposite is true as well. If we have more of these gasses in the atmosphere then that means that we have more infrared being trapped, and the earth gets warmed.
All of what I just said is just basic physics, and is undeniably factual. None of it has to do with "correlation or casual reduction" as you implied.
Now that we have established that more greenhouse gasses cause the planet to warm, and we can both agree that humans are producing more greenhouse gasses then occur naturally we have to ask ourselves, could there be some other cause?
The answer is no.
In one of your earlier arguments with me, you sighted the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle. I have already shown you evidence that the movie itself is rife with intellectual dishonesty of the lowest kind, however, if you would like to contest that point I would be happy to oblige a debate on the subject.
One of the points the movie argues, however, is that the increases in warming over the last hundred or so years, has been primarily due to solar activity. They even use a graph which can be seen here. As you can probably see however the line representing solar output stops at around 1980. A little bit of research shows that the reason the creators of this movie decided to stop the graph at that point is because, while global temperatures continue to climb, solar output actually begins to decrease. Here is a full graph that shows what the movie conveniently left out.
The fact is, solar activity has remained on a fairly steady 11 year cycle, whereas global temperature has been increasing dramatically. This shows that solar output could not be responsible for the earths sudden increase in temperature.
Global Warming is the modern day definition of Pious Fraud, and how you can convince a crowd by persistent repetition and fear mongering, despite the lack of proper evidence.
I hope that you now see how wrong this statement is. There are mountains of evidence that show that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the increase in temperature. I could easily have gone on to talk about ice core samples that tie temperature to carbon dioxide levels for thousands of years, or I could have talked about climate models that have predicted with a great deal of accuracy how the earths climate will be affected by increased emissions of greenhouse gasses.
What I find most startling about your argument is that you provide no evidence to contradict any of my claims, but merely cry out that global warming is a hoax, and we are all being duped. If you know more than the thousands of climate scientists who are in agreement that we are causing global warming, then please share with us. Otherwise, maybe you should leave science to the scientists.
The earth is warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have produced more CO2 recently. Therefore humans are responsible for the extra heat.
I'm sorry but if you can't see that this is a fallacy based on correlation and causal reduction (I said causal, not "casual") then there is not point me continuing.
If you can't provide a valid alternative theory about why the earth is warming, then yes, there is no point in you continuing.
While we're talking about fallicies, however, you created a strawman of my argument:
The earth is warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have produced more CO2 recently. Therefore humans are responsible for the extra heat.
Close, but not quite. Allow me to correct you.
The earth is warmer due to more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which include CO2, methane and water vapor. Humans have caused CO2 and methane levels to increase dramatically (CO2: from 278 ppm in 1750 (Source), to 380 parts per million in 2007 (source; Methane: .7 ppb in 1750, to 1.7 ppb in 2007 (same sources)).
Looking at ice core samples, we can see that levels of CO2 this high have always been associated with both temperature spikes, and (looking at the fossil record) massive extinction events. In addition, there has never before been a spike in the levels of carbon dioxide this high.
In addition, the current warming does not fit with the cycle of warming and cooling that is observed in the ice core samples. This periodic warming and cooling is based on long-term changes in the earths orbit (known as Milankovitch factors). Our planet is not expected to experience another such periodic warming/cooling for another 20,000 to 30,000 years.
We also know that all other factors that could be responsible for an increase in temperature, are in fact acting exactly as they always do. The sun hasn't strayed from it's steady eleven year cycle... there haven't been any tremendous volcanic eruptions or seismic activity that could be causing a change in the global temperature. In short, everything is normal but the greenhouse gasses, and, as I stated previously, the most significant factor in changing greenhouse gasses is human activity.
Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is humans are responsible for the extra heat.
In addition, you seem to think that we must have a definitive proof, however science does not deal with absolutes. There is always a chance that new data will come along and falsify an idea, however in cases like climate change that chance is less than a billion to one. What we have is known as circumstantial evidence. For example if you walked into a room, saw a dead body with bullet holes, and a man, covered in blood spatter, holding a gun with bullets that matched those found in the victim, and no one (other than yourself, the shooter and the victim) was around for miles, the only logical conclusion to make would be that the man shot the victim. You didn't technically see what happened, but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove the fact beyond a reasonable doubt... and in fact people are sent to prison for life on much less.
In this way, correlation does not "prove" anything, but does constitute one piece of evidence in the "case" of global warming. A case which has long been settled by climate scientists, and only remains open in the public's warped view of the facts.
If you are still not convinced after having read this, then maybe I can show you one last piece of evidence that will sway your opinion: climate models.
How many tons of Co2 do think we should produce to control the temperature of the Earth’s climate?
Well ideally we shouldn't really be producing any because the earth was doing pretty well on its own before humans began pumping billions of tons of CO2 (not Co2, that would be cobalt) into the atmosphere. However it's obvious that this is impossible. A more reasonable cut, like 40% of emissions in the next decade would be difficult but necessary if we want to combat the effects of global warming. This is also unlikely to happen, however, so we're going to have to settle with something like a 50% cut in emissions by 2050.
Are you prepared to be held accountable when we are too hot or too cold?
First, there is no way that the planet is going to get too cold. As I said before the planet was fine before us, so cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses will only put us closer to what the earth naturally should be (by naturally I mean a world without humans).
As far as too hot, that's only going to happen if we don't act.
So to answer your question, yes, I and those who are in favor of acting are readily prepared to be held accountable. The real question is, are those who do nothing ready to be held accountable when the negative impacts of climate change become more obvious?
Are you bold enough to enforce your will upon all Co2 producers of the world?
Force? That's a pretty vague term. If you mean threaten to go to war with, then obviously no. If you mean impose economic sanctions and diplomatically persuade them, then yes.
Are you prepared to regulate human breathing and farting?
This is a good example of one of the most ignorant arguments about climate change. Human breathing (and farting) causes such a small impact on the global environment that it is negligible. No one is proposing regulating our breathing, because to do so would be foolish. The real source of greenhouse gasses is the burning of fossil fuels.
Let explain this to you: A certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and in fact plants convert CO2 into O2, so in nature there is already a system in place to deal with CO2. However, because of tremendous deforestation of important oxygen producing rain forests coupled with the dramatic increase in emissions caused by human industrial activity in the last hundred years, we have experienced a warming that is unnatural and we must do something about.
Here are a few interesting comments in the article that are the same exact ones made today except in reverse...
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years..."
"when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades."
"The trend shows no indication of reversing." what? it can't be reversed?
"Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland..." ahh those damn telltale signs that get us to pay more taxes to save the world.
"Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round." lol...maybe now that it's melting..we have saved the human race from the next ice age only to find we are going to enter the next 'desert age'. Going forward, we need to pay closer attention to those "Telltale signs" more closely.
"Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought." then what's the cause of Africa's drought now? oh yea...global warming..oops..I mean 'Climate change'.
"The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example." uh? Again..I thought all of the recent violent storms and tornadoes were caused by...
"Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun." hmmm..i'm starting to see a partern here.
"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend." well at least back then, man was only 'partly' responsible. Now man is 'completely' responsible, so we are evolving.
"...climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning.." fuel burning? but isn't that...? never mind
"But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate." thank god in todays world we don't need all that confusing information. We can all agree that Al Gore has all the information he needs to tax us.
"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic." in politics, as long as you use the word 'Catastrophic', you can pretty much get anything you want. "If we let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, it will be 'catastrophic' on our economy. Therefore, give me 50 billion please"
"Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row." wow...wasn't that episode on mtv's 'scare tactics'? Scared the hell out of me.
I think Time magazine forgot to delete all those archives concerning the coming 'Ice Age'.
Times is not a scientific journal. They are not peer reviewed, and in fact do not represent the view of the scientific community.
At the time this article was written, more scientists were concerned about global warming despite then global cooling. Watch the video someone posted on the other side of the debate...it is very informative.
What if I told you we had solved global problems like this before?
By banning ChloroFloroCarbons (CFCs) we actually made the hole in the ozone (that we originally caused) smaller. We helped to save the planet once, why can't we do it again?
My own research has discovered that the demise of the dinosaurs was nothing to do with asteroids, but was Dino-induced global warming.
The vast majority of dinosaurs were herbivores, essentially with the same digestive processes as, say an elephant or a cow. A cow produces around 100kg of methane-- a most notorious greenhouse gas, per year--an elephant 1000kg through animal flatulence.. Dinosaurs were basically enormous cows--on a pro-rata basis they would have blown off around six tons of methane per year each.
Kenya supports about 30,000 Elephants today--as recently as the 1930s it supported a million. Fredrick Selous estimated that there were 10 million Elephant South of the Zambezi before 1870--without human or other competition we could guess a Brontosaurus density of 1 per ten hectares, say 13 billion world-wide,,, that's 78 billion tons of fart gas per year. Humans today produce only 30 billion tons from industrial and mechanical sources, clearly we can afford a few more beans before the end.
There is no scientific evidence of Global Warming. It could happen, yes, but it is not happening now.
New research shows that it is not because of greenhouse gases, but because of the Sun. The Sun is burning brighter than it has in 60,000 years. The least percentage of the melting of ice is human activity.
I add my argument to the "Nope, never did" side but the truth is that I did believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming up until about one year ago. That was the first time that I actually researched the opposition. When I looked at all the evidence from both sides and filtered out as much noise as possible I came to the conclusion that AGW isn't all it's made out to be.