![]() |
|
View Poll Results: Climate Change: Manmade or Natural? | |||
Global Warming - Burning Fossil Fuels is going to kill the planet! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
21 | 75.00% |
Global Warming - It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade CO2 is not causing it. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Global Cooling - Chlorofluorocarbons from your fridge are killing the enviroment! |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Global Cooling -It's a natural climate cycle, Manmade chemicals are not causing it. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Climate Change - Does not exist. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Climate Change - Exists but mankind is not causing it/can not do anything to stop or change it it. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
7 | 25.00% |
Acid Rain - Human Emissions are going to kill the enviroment, certainly a problem back in the 80s. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#51 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
![]() |
This is the Mozz. No need to be sarcastic.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Trying to send Christmas cards
![]() Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: *scribble*
Posts: 1,460
|
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Banned
![]() |
Hmm, it seems my thread is being trolled now..
I guess that just means that there is a lack of arguments or evidence to bring to the table to counter my positions. I'll take that as a win on you then, don't let the door hit you on the way out, but you're welcome back anytime you have something of worth to bring to the table. This is the debate section, so please, lets debate. (Purposefully vague, but if you are not trolling, which you should know the truth of, then I wasn't referring to you) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
Volcano Badge
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,878
|
I was gonna hold back and let everyone post their ideas, but I think it's about time for me to tell you all the REAL reason behind global warming.
It's not the earth that's getting hotter. I'M getting hotter. As I get older, I get dead sexier every year, and it radiates across the Earth. So not only is global warming man made. It's made by manliness. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | |
Dominator of Bike Levels
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
Quote:
THIS MEANS I AM THE WINNER! HOORAY FOR ME! This is one of those debates where you can either choose to believe the science or you can choose to ignore it, you cannot deny that the vast majority of the scientific community has come out in favor of man-influenced Global Warming. You've obviously chosen the latter, which is your right- but it doesn't mean that the people who make fun of you aren't right to do so. I'll be looking forward to your next Tea Party-line Debate topic "Creationism is backed up by science".
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
Banned
![]() |
And all they did was deny the evidence I brought up, so, go figure.
![]() You can not start with "This is a Law, it can not be false, and any flaws you bring up are simply not yet understood parts of said law." One must prove beyond a doubt for a theory to become law. It is the scientists' (or in this case, your) burden to prove it as an indisputable fact, otherwise it can only be considered a theory, simply idle conjecture (this is how science works), all I need to do is point out one exception, and the entire thing is false. And that's what I've been doing. Now, parts of the theory could be true, CO2 is rising, temperatures are rising, but to say it indisputably is disastrous to the planet, and of Man's making, well, I've yet to see your indisputable truth here. And that's why we're debating. Global Warming could be caused by sunspots, tidal cycles, Earth's wobble, climatic cycles, cosmic radiation, algae population cycles, or any number of factors besides Man. Just because a group of scientists pull out a graph and say, CO2 is rising, temperatures are rising, and man is creating CO2 by burning fossil fuels, therefore the three must be related, despite so many numerous other variables that need to be accounted for, and then tout it as the End of the World, does not make something "true." And the fact that restrictive legislation gets passed that, "surprisingly" actually does very little for the environment but stands to profit numerous persons and empower others, as well as allow the government to further Dictate how people are allowed live their lives, with all these scientists ringing the alarm bells getting tons of expensive grants to further the agenda, certainly makes one deeply suspicious. Last edited by unownmew; 09-02-2011 at 12:58 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
The Path of Now & Forever
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
If both sides have themselves entrenched in what they believe to be infallible truths then it's not a debate anymore, but a flame war.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | ||
Banned
![]() |
Quote:
I can not ignore a science which does not exist. I accept the majority of the Scientific elite have reached a consensus on manmade global warming. However, it really is a sad thing for the scientific community, because to be a true scientist, is to be a skeptic, to doubt your own claims until you have proven them irrefutably true. And even then, have your doubts, because, as a human, you are prone to mistakes, which could have impacted your results. Do not tell me, that, if a scientist was promised X Millions/Billions of Dollars to end up with fraudulent results in a test, there would not be a single scientist who would take that offer. That's just ridiculous. Humans are easily corruptible. Now, I'm not saying this is definitely something that happened, but, just think about it. Are scientists really as trustworthy as people would want to believe? Scientists can be as biased as the most devout religious figures. If they don't want to hear truth, nothing's stopping them from fudging some numbers up, or deliberately leaving out key factors so that the results conform to their beliefs. Just like the Catholic Church did with Galileo and his view of the Earth revolving around the sun, instead of being the center of the universe. Which we now know is absolutely correct. This is why I'm skeptical of "Consensus Science," Because science is ever changing as we learn more things. Add to the fact that, the Global Warming Consensus, refuses to listen to any counter arguments that may take the blame off of Mankind, and well, what we have is actually a religion, not a science. Quote:
If we civilly debate ideas, and ideas only, with open minds, we will eventually come to the truth. Be it my side, your side, or neither side. I am confident in that. Last edited by unownmew; 09-02-2011 at 01:32 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
The Path of Now & Forever
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I'm not saying either side was right or wrong.
But neither side is budging. Everyone has their believe as to what's causing global warming and they're clearly sticking to it. You included. You both shoot down each others arguments without any change in your opinions. This isn't a debate anymore. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#61 |
Golden Wang of Justice
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
I'll go with "We're probably not helping the cause but I'll be damned if I'll have the government impede progress in the name of iffy science."
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#62 |
The hostess with the mostess
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
I want to avoid intentional trolling (you know who you are) and personal attacks in the debate section. Seeing as how we're bustling with activity, at least let's try to be as civil as possible.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#63 |
時の彼方へ
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Some reading:
Harvesting Geothermal Energy - NPR article from August 2008 about geothermal heating and cooling systems some rebuttals to common criticisms of global warming, some of which have been raised in this very thread: Response to "the Hockey Stick is broken" Response to "the Medieval Warm Period was just as warm then as it is today" Response to "Didn't Greenland used to be green?" Response to "the elevated CO2 levels today are mostly natural and not manmade" (with an interesting tidbit about "fossil carbon + young oxygen" radioisotope dating! ![]() For more in this series, click here. "Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says" - NPR article from January 2009 in which a global authority on climate change points out that the safety blanket many cling to -- "we can reverse all this nastiness if we stop what we're doing and change our ways before it's too late" -- may be little more than a comforting lie and that we may already be screwed for several centuries to come. history of CO2-based global warming thinking in science - Arrhenius, a very famous chemist, came up with the idea of CO2-based global warming as early as 1908. CO2 levels at Mauna Loa from 1958 to 2007 For more readings from this source, check out their table of contents here. 20 Myths Raised by Global Warming Deniers - a weblog that has aggregated some common (and some not so common!) criticisms of global warming and helpfully provided hyperlinks to the appropriate scientific rebuttals of these claims. Presented in very accessible English, I link this as it provided a great portal from the layEnglish (his blog) to the technical English (the science journals) so important in these sorts of debates. Global Warming portal that has many links for readers of all climatology educational backgrounds
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#64 |
Golden Wang of Justice
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
Talon, if "The Earth orbits the sun." is 100 and "We were put here by Princess Celestia." is a 0, where do you place standard evolution theory and AGW? Interested to see.
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#65 |
時の彼方へ
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I would place evolution in that 97 to 100 bracket. It is as much a fact as any "law" of physics.
I would place anthropogenic global warming in the high 70s camp. Strong evidence for it, but it's a multi-variable problem of enormous scope. I would not come out swinging like Al Gore, lol. I definitely think it could be wrong: but the thing is, no better arguments have been put forth so far. If you were to ask me how I'd rank anthropogenic CO2 emissions having demonstrable effects on the environment, on the other hand, that'd go into the 85 to 90 bracket. I'm pretty convinced by the marine and soil evidence that this is a fact. Do I think natural stuff (solar cycle, planetary procession and wobble, etc) could be factors? Sure I do. Do I think they're contributing to the problem more than man? No, because the data time and time again suggest unnatural (i.e. a non-Natural) trends.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#66 | |
Fog Badge
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
Extremely well said. My opinion is still slightly different from this personally, but I really enjoy this way this is worded. This is the kind of argument I like seeing in the debates section. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#67 |
Banned
![]() |
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist resigns from global warming
Incontrovertible Evidence? Scientific Consensus? Apparently not. Perhaps we should remain skeptical of all "consensus" claims. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#68 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
![]() |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#69 | |
Banned
![]() |
Quote:
I'm going to be addressing Talon's links now. Currently looking into them. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#70 | ||||||||||
Banned
![]() |
In researching, I found this LOL worthy article:
US Debt is the cause of Global Warming! Quote:
Quote:
They then go on to cite a second "corrected" graph, the one you posted a while back, and claim it as fact, while I've already addressed the problems it has. (3 lines done by the same groups that did the original fraud graph, with the others done by the same limited, and suspicious dendrology data sets the original was based from. Which the Wagmen Report I posted earlier goes on to discredit.) Any further discussion on this particular subject should be done in regards to the fallacies pointed out in that report. Lots of fancy words here, but no proof of anything. The only "source" they linked, I cannot find any information about the subject they actually wrote about, unless it's hidden somewhere. If you could find the actual source, I'd be happy to debate it. L-O-freaking-L!!! They sourced themselves as proof of their rightness!! In fact, sourcing the very same article I just asked for a clearer source from above. How's that for science?! Oh that's rich. Thanks for the laugh, it really loosened up the tedium of researching. I'd also like to say, I'm sure this website is terribly biased in favor of Global Warming, so, maybe we shouldn't be using it, since it's so biased. ![]() Quote:
Oh well, I'll address it anyway.. I can't really debunk Ice core samples, however, the graph they linked looked crazy, and the scale was too huge to make sense of the last couple years where they claimed the CO2 was raising so dramatically. But, thanks to one of the comments below the article, I was given this information: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/2...rce/#more-6524 Particularly: Quote:
Inceased CO2 is a result of the Ocean Warming, not the other way around Hmm, that article sources the same site I just used, though it seems to be backed up substantially by numbers. I'll look to see if I can find a separate source later. Quote:
Quote:
Crisis Crisis Crisis!!! We need to step up efforts because it's irreversable! Wait.. if it's irreversible, what's the point in spending all that money, and ruining all those lives, for something proven unattainable? What kind of logic is that? It's pointless, so why waste the effort? How about we spend that money and fossil fuels on learning how to live on the moon and Mars instead? If we can accomplish that, living in a "Global Warming Planet gone awry," should be doable too, then we'll be prepared for the "drastic crisis" we're inevitably going to end up with. Quote:
I may have to come back to this later. For now, I'll Leave it at this: Correllation does not necessitate Causation. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll get to these, maybe next week? I still have homework I need to do, considering the sheer volume here, I may not be done for a couple months.. Edit: Not especially related, but deals with green energy. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...t-robert-bryce I plan not to address the other things until the semester ends, so if you want to address what I have so far, feel free. Edit: I come across links now and again. This doesn't debunk Manmade Global warming, but it does put everything into perspective, http://youtu.be/vvObfrs3qoE, a perspective that you may not have considered before. Also, Climategate 2.0, more Emails are leaked, showing evidence of collusion with politicians, and selective use of data. And if they're really taken out of context, and there's truly nothing damning there, why not release the full text so us "Deniers" can "read it and weep" ? Last edited by unownmew; 12-01-2011 at 09:48 AM. |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#71 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Banned
![]() |
I said I'd address these eventually, and so I shall. Since School's out, I have more free time to read long articles and post lengthy replies.
Your first unaddressed link: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Quote:
What about the daily emissions of CO2 by each and every single human and other animal on the planet, in the form of Exhalation, and waste material? surely this must account for much much more more then all the Coal burning plants combined. And of course, the population growth as well. Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sounds like improper measurements to me. Quote:
Upon mention of Climate Models, I looked to the source, and found this: Quote:
Quote:
As the orbit changes and warms the earth, ice melts, and more water is evaporated, which then turns to clouds and provides the brunt of the non-man-made Global Warming, because it's proven fact that clouds and water vapor provide more of the greenhouse effect then any other gas, including CO2. Quote:
And attempted personal attack on "deniers." As well as an attempt to diminish dissenting voices. Your second unaddressed link: http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.c...-debunking/#m1 I'm skimming this one looking for the sources instead of reading everything, to save time. So far, just about each and every single "myth" being debunked, links back to the IPPC in some way as a source. Quote:
Not to mention is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not necessitate Causation. Quote:
![]() Notice no mention of current solar activity and whether those levels have returned to "normal" or remained the low they were that originally caused the 'Little Ice Age". Returning to normal would be a significant cause for the return to warm temperatures we're seeing that's being called "Man-made Global Warming." This Case For Global Warming Fails. Quote:
![]() So, it should be completely ignored because of a lack of data, instead of intently studied further as a possible alternative? This case also fails. Anyway, back to the IPCC. It can not be considered an independent and objective, scientific body, so long as it allows governments to review and edit it's findings. Taken directly from their website, on 12/12/11: Quote:
Your third unaddressed link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/ Many many links, several of which to the IPCC. I'm not going to address anything here, as I feel I would only be repeating myself. My Conclusion: CO2 is emitted by much more then just burning Fossil fuels. Humans and all Animals exhale it in each breath, and as their populations grow, so will the emissions. Bogs, swamps, volcanoes and the ocean emit it regularly, as with all other decaying plant and animal matter. Any Form of burning organic materials will also emit CO2, burning regular wood logs, forest fires, and controlled environment burns (which are considered healthy for ecosystems). It is nonsense to believe that burning Fossil Fuels provides any significant portion over these other sources. CO2 is not the only "greenhouse gas", and certainly not the most significant. Methane also is such a gas, which is also emitted from decaying matter and animal waste. Water Vapor and clouds, while the most significant sources of the greenhouse effect, are severely downplayed in Global Warming research, and entirely unpredictable. Warming is caused by numerous factors besides just the Greenhouse effect. Earth's cyclical orbits, putting it at differing distances from the sun, as well as sunspots and solar flares are also causes. The storage of heat in the Oceans both from sunlight, as well as from geological heat vents in the very depths, which is regularly emitted into the atmosphere through both convection and radiation, also has an effect. CO2 is regularly absorbed by all plants, plankton, and the ocean, which help regulate the natural climate cycles. If an overabundance of CO2 is encountered, plant growth and plant population will increase to compensate. Correlation of CO2 with the earth's temperature changes can not prove it's causation of those temperature changes. Correlation does not equal Causation. Ice Core samples now show irrefutably, that CO2 lags behind the temperature changes. Thus its impact on Global Climate, if any, is incredibly insignificant. The IPCC is an untrustworthy body from which to derive any sort of scientific evidence, because it has too much government involvement, it can not remain objective and fair, when someone else is writing the agenda, who may, and most likely, already have an agenda. And when those same people have opportunity no less then 2 times, to edit and review it's publications. As seen in this image, taken from this page of their website on 12/12/11: ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#72 | ||
Problematic Fave
![]() Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
The point is, though, that, like Othello, the slightest suspicion that this is not the best idea, when there are many workable and eventually profitable alternatives out there right now, should be enough for us to make a change. Michael Crichton sums up the heavy price of inaction on this probability in Jurassic Park. Quote:
My point is, global warming could be fake. I'm not ruling out the possibility, certainly! But I would like to act on the assumption that if we do nothing about it, the temperature of the world is going to be ten billion degrees celsius and we're all going to die. What's to be gained from sitting in the armchair and saying "oh, global warming doesn't exist! We can X, Y, and Z!"? If global warming's fake, great. If it's not, then doing that is not the best idea, don't you agree?
__________________
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#73 |
Fog Badge
![]() Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Basically, global warming could be fake, but we should be responding to it responsibly either way. With the ability to use green technology more and more, we should be responsible and adapt to alternative energy and cleaner ways of doing things. Even if global warming was proven to be an overreaction or a falsehood, it's better for us and the earth to do away with the ways of old anyway.
And that's seriously the answer everyone should be able to accept. Whether you believe global warming exists or not, there is no excuse to at least act like it does. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#74 | ||
Banned
![]() |
Quote:
I don't just "think" Global Warming is a Hoax, I know it. There's no reason for me to do anything. And, considering the fact that Government is using it as a cover to steal more and more of our precious freedoms away from us, freedoms we will never get back until such time as America totally collapses, or a revolutionary Patriotic President and Congress appear and hack through all the waste and regulation to free up our liberties again, I have even more reason to fight against it. You don't expect the Global Warming Laws and regulations will actually be repealed once the Crisis is abated or the whole thing proven as a scam and a Hoax do you? The very concept is Laughable. And should it be discovered hoax, do you honestly think it'll be on all the front news pages? No, it will be as quite as possible, so people's reputations aren't destroyed, and it'll be simply forgotten. Quote:
The problem arises, when "Crisis" (real or perceived) is used as an excuse to voluntarily give up, or involuntarily steal, personal freedoms to Government Control and Regulation. If something bad is happening, do your part and act to prevent it. But act as individuals and organizations to solve the problem, not as government lobbies vying for power and control with Mandates and regulations. And don't impose your beliefs, and especially not your solutions on others, let everyone do to help as they see fit accordingly. There is nothing beneficial from Artificially increasing prices of one product to make a different one competitive with them (by imposing new costs on the original), using my (and your) TAX dollars to subsidize companies that would otherwise fail or bankrupt, and imposing regulations on people and companies that limit their freedoms and productivity/profitability. All three have been done in the name of "Global Warming." It was Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole, and Global Cooling back in the 60s/70s/80s. And it'll be something else once Global warming is finally and completely debunked (or simply forgotten). The Elites know "Crisis" is so far the best method for stealing liberties and empowering themselves and garnering wealth from the lower populace, and so long as they're not stopped, they'll keep saying "It's a Crisis!!" until each and every one of your liberties and mine are taken away. Last edited by unownmew; 12-23-2011 at 06:09 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#75 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
![]() |
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather give up personal freedoms when the alternative is letting smug self-centered bastards completely fuck us all over, in the same way I'm sure you'd prefer that the personal freedoms of, say, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were respected over allowing innocent people to be gunned down.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 12-23-2011 at 06:19 PM. Reason: Fixed up a derptastic sentence |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|