|
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 |
12-23-2011, 06:46 PM | #76 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Not all Humans are "Asshats," Coke-Cola recently put in a promotion to "Save the Polar Bears," and while I disagree they need saving, there are Numerous Companies and Individuals that donate Large sums to Charities and other foundations that better other's lives. Companies need incentives, not mandates. Like, a tax credit from their original tax rate if they lower emissions by a set amount, instead of a tax hike, along with increased operating cost for lower profit, and mandates they need to comply with. Personally, I think the ability to advertise to the masses they are "Green" is plenty, and Government need not get involved. Quote:
Let's see, you mean the Columbine Killers had a right to kill people? I didn't know that. I thought the right was just to bear Arms, raise a militia, and have the ability to rebel from our government should it attempt to overstep it's bounds too greatly like King George III did. Obviously if they had wanted to murder people, they would have done so, with whatever tools they had. Gun Laws wouldn't have stopped them, Criminals will always have weapons, it's the law abiding that suffer from that regulation. If you think making the connection to Columbine and gun control validates your beliefs, think again. If someone else had had a Gun on that day, or those two students knew they were entering an area where weapons were widely carried, fewer people would have died that day, if any at all, I can guarantee it. |
||
01-26-2012, 07:01 PM | #77 |
#009: Blastoise
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: here, there, everywhere...
Posts: 342
|
Global Warming, has always been around, it has always been naturally occuring, but our greenhouse gasses are dramatically changing our climate, and if it keeps happening, we shall kill, many or even all species on earth including us!
|
01-26-2012, 08:10 PM | #78 |
Banned
|
Thank you for bringing this thread back on topic.
However, you are wrong. There is great evidence in the favor of man-made Global Warming being an elaborate fraud, and I'm more apt to believe that, then believe Mankind can bring about radical climate change just by burning stuff that would naturally ooze out of the ground, or be released whenever lighting starts a fire. Oh, and is constantly released by the exhalation of every single animal in the world.. |
01-27-2012, 02:52 AM | #79 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
|
01-27-2012, 03:00 AM | #80 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
*reads unownmew's post in deoxys' post*
Well, debate over then I guess. Wonder why we had it in the first place if it's that cut and dried, huh?
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
01-27-2012, 03:03 AM | #81 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
To be fair there is a little more to his post than that, but it is a summation of all of his opinions on the matter thus far culminating in "There is great evidence in the favor of man-made Global Warming being an elaborate fraud".
|
01-27-2012, 12:25 PM | #82 |
Banned
|
I appreciate the defense deoxys, especially since I can no longer give it myself to Muyotwo
I summarized because all my previous posts were the meat of the issue, and it seems my points are simply ignored in favor of the "Consensus," not even given the opportunity to be examined for plausibility. |
01-27-2012, 02:19 PM | #83 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Because you're not a scientist, mew. No one writes off the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and yet 98% of scientists agree that man HAS had an influence on the atmosphere. Why do you deny something that scholars and those who have studied everyday for years and years? Such thinking is ignorant and dangerous. This isn't a debated statistic either.
Oh wait, I forgot, this must be a liberal agenda of some sort to get the government to run our lives even more. Because that's the obvious answer to everything you don't want to believe.
__________________
Last edited by deoxys; 01-27-2012 at 02:22 PM. |
01-27-2012, 04:00 PM | #84 | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
I'm not denying that humanity can assert a direct and lasting influence on the weather, particularly in the event of a widespread nuclear disaster/war. The difference here though, is the weather is related to cloud cover, and could just as easily occur with the same devastation through natural causes (such as volcanic eruptions or asteroid collision). Nor am I denying that Carbon Dioxide is related in some manner with temperature. The difference here is, just because they are related, and are proven to correlate, such correlation does not necessitate that CO2 causes temperature changes, and I've yet to see any conclusive evidence proving one way or another. Furthermore I believe the "impact" Humanity has on any rising CO2 trends is quite miniscule when you look at the big picture. BTW, if your statistic is so undebatable, why leave out your source? Quote:
Of course, for people who don't live in such a world, it's easy to understand their blind faith in government intervention. |
||
01-27-2012, 04:57 PM | #85 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Because I'm tired of citing my sources with you and you just writing them off. Not to mention I can honestly say I only vaguely remember the statistic and I think that was it, I don't remember. You can Google it just as easily as I can (in b4 you Google it and find a site with the opposite results)
Debating with you is starting to become no different from a dog chasing it's own tail. You're quite honestly the most stubborn conservative I've ever debated with, and I know a LOT of conservatives. I mean maybe if there was ever any common ground with you but you almost always have to disagree. I feel like I could tell you that the sky is blue and you'd retort with "it's actually aquamarine. You're just buying into the liberal propaganda the EPA wants you to believe." I mean maybe if you were more open minded (which are the best kind of debates. When I lose and know it I concede, especially when I learn something new out of it), but you aren't. Honestly I'm surprised you haven't called me or Talon a pinhead yet, so there's that. |
01-27-2012, 05:11 PM | #86 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
Personally, I think humans contribute to it, but only in a minute amount. The Earth goes through climate change naturally. While humans do have some "say" in it, it's not all us.
__________________
|
01-27-2012, 06:21 PM | #87 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I try to be mostly civil in my debates, though I may get heated at times, getting into personal attacks only means you've lost and have no more evidence on your side, so I don't do that. |
|||
01-28-2012, 09:42 AM | #88 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
I'm sure you've heard of Pascal's Wager, unownmew. Now while it's full of logical fallacies with religion, it works surprisingly well with Global Warming. If Global Warming does exist, then we're doing our best to stop it. If it doesn't, we're going to have a cleaner, greener, more efficient world anyway!
__________________
Spoiler: show |
01-28-2012, 02:28 PM | #89 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
What my problem with Global Warming, is, it's being used as an excuse for Governments to infringe on individual liberties, mess with the economic system, and intervene in the private sector to pick winners and losers based on politics and campaign contributions instead of merit. If you believe in Global Warming, go on and do things yourself to change society's perceptions and make a difference. But leave government out of it completely, everyone has the right to make their own choice as to whether to participate in "Saving the world," or not, they shouldn't be mandated by government either way. |
|
01-28-2012, 03:15 PM | #90 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
01-29-2012, 01:31 PM | #91 | |
Banned
|
Quote:
In this debate, any appeal to claims made by the IPCC, as an authority, is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, your example is much to simple for the complex problem of Global Warming, a better example, taking from your ice floe example: We're all stuck on an ice floe, and are radioing for help. We make contact with an unknown entity which tells us they're a scientific body with satellite visual of our position. They then tells us that according to their observations, our ice flow is cracking, and the best procedure to prevent it from furthering, is to lay down on the ice. Some of us who are trapped, panic, and demand everyone lay down right now or we'll all die. The more level-headed among us (those who didn't immediately panic) argue, after close examination of the surface of the floe, that there is no evidence to suggest any cracking at this time. And furthermore remind us that 3/4 or so of the floe is actually underwater, and if any cracking were to start, it would occur first at the edges, so we'd know when, if it really started cracking. The levelheaded then radio back telling them there is no evidence yet of cracking, but the scientific entity asserts otherwise, and then says they will start extracting fees from the bank accounts of those who do not comply with their recommendation, to give to any survivors who did. They then call on the panicked and tell them they have the authority to enforce the recommendation by force to the non-compliant. So, what is wrong with this picture? That's what's wrong with the Global Warming Debate. |
|
01-29-2012, 03:13 PM | #92 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
To use your perversion of my ice floe example, I would point out this:
__________________
|
01-29-2012, 04:48 PM | #93 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
This is essentially how I perceive it as well, but I think it's a more than a minute amount. It's been proven that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods naturally, and we're currently in one right now. But, we also happen to be pumping a shit load of bad things into the atmosphere, which is not only speeding the natural process up, but also is making it warmer than usual.
|
01-29-2012, 08:59 PM | #94 | |||
Banned
|
Quote:
Unless you or another scientist can show me that the cause of the PH of the ocean and the yearly temperature is actually a direct result (and not just something that seems to be raising at the same time), of humans burning CO2, you have no leg to stand on. Prove the causation, and then you'll start getting me to convert. Quote:
Quote:
However, the "claim" for an actual Global Warming Catastrophe, only started with the publishing of Mann et al and their Fraudulent Hockey Stick Graph. It was ONLY THEN, that it became something worth any serious study at all. From then, many people have taken the issue, and made profit from it by increasing hype and releasing misinformation (Al Gore). And yet, even with the proving of the hockey stick graph as a total fraud, the sole reason man-made global warming was considered a serious threat, we're told we still need to look into the issue... Huh? During this time, the UN formed the IPCC, and any and all conclusive evidence regarding Man-made global warming and how it "truly exists!" since the Hockey Stick Graph, has stemmed from them and them alone. Conclusions drawn with scientific research, and then reviewed and modified to suit the agenda of the financier, Government. Each and every proponent has a vested interest in Man-made Global Warming being a truth. They've staked their lives and reputation on it, and Damn it if they'll fall from grace if the whole thing turns up hoax, they'll do whatever they can to keep the hoax alive, and their reputations and federal funding grants intact. Government has a vested interest in keeping Global Warming as a "serious threat," because it gives them much greater leverage at stealing precious liberties, staying in power, and increasing tax dollars. They've also placed their reputations on the line (politicians) and you know damn well what would happen to them if it came out they were perpetrating and facilitating fraud. That's why they can never let a contrary viewpoint stand, there is too much at stake for them: their power, and their money. And this is why we are having this discussion. Furthermore, even if man-made global warming Does exist, and really will be a catastrophe in the future, which I have no reason to believe will be the case, but just to suppose: The correct response is not Governments increasing their power and taxation, nor for them to severely break their contractual bounds and inhibit or otherwise completely take away personal liberties. It is for government to encourage and promote (but not directly fund!) the sciences to find solutions that will allow humanity to prosper in this "post catastrophic" state. For instance, space colonization. Not only does it solve the problem, but it doesn't infringe liberty, and makes everyone wealthier with the increase of [private sector] jobs and better technology. The planet will be fine whatever we do to it (short of ramming another planet into it), the main problem to be fixed would be humanity's continued existence. Last edited by unownmew; 01-29-2012 at 09:11 PM. |
|||
09-21-2014, 07:46 PM | #95 | |||
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Could've sworn we had a global warming thread. Didn't remember it being from the unownmew era of the Debate forum. ^^; orz
A friend shared this New York Times article with me. Choice quotes: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
09-21-2014, 07:51 PM | #96 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
My Lord it's hard to believe how much I've changed my stance on this issue in two and a half years.
__________________
|
09-21-2014, 07:56 PM | #97 |
ROASTY ROASTY
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: THE WORLD OF HOT POT
Posts: 2,791
|
It's sad to believe that in Australia, we're capable of cutting emissions, but big business lies in the mining industry and such leverage from the higher powers forces us to back-pedal towards an unsustainable future rife with more warming. >_>;
I honestly didn't know we had this thread. |
09-21-2014, 07:57 PM | #98 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I don't want to read this thread.
*clicks "first"* NO NO I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS *hits control+F* *actually reasonable neutral position* ty jesus
__________________
|
09-21-2014, 08:05 PM | #99 | |
Marsh Badge
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,739
|
Quote:
__________________
Fizzy Bubbles: Karmas
|
|
09-21-2014, 09:20 PM | #100 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,280
|
My word, I lost far too many brain cells from reading unownmew's posts. Thank goodness we don't have to deal with an arch-conservative conspiracy theorist like him anymore.
Anyway, while global warming is indeed a natural process (the earth goes between Ice age and warmer ages, essentially, just on very large timescales), man made emissions and such, left unchecked, could throw off that balance and make Ice ages warmer and times like these blazing.
__________________
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|