UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-01-2011, 06:01 PM   #51
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,153
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Thank you for your incredibly meaningful contribution on the matter.
I can't imagine what I would have done without that input, I'm quite beside myself.
This is the Mozz. No need to be sarcastic.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2011, 09:30 PM   #52
The Morg
Somehow a cat
 
The Morg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Why am I always a cat?
Posts: 1,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozz View Post
GOOD FOR YOUUUUUUUUU
THAAAAAANKS

::smells fart::
__________________

I'll burn your bread, if you know what I mean
The Morg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 07:05 AM   #53
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
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)
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 09:08 AM   #54
big bad birtha
Volcano Badge
 
big bad birtha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,862
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.
big bad birtha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 10:30 AM   #55
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,808
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
wut

All you did was deny the evidence people brought up.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 12:22 PM   #56
Muyotwo
Dominator of Bike Levels
 
Muyotwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
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.
*My points are roundly mocked, I've shown notable ignorance over even fairly common knowledge facts like "Radiation is bad for humans".*
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.
Muyotwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 12:54 PM   #57
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
wut

All you did was deny the evidence people brought up.
And all they did was deny the evidence I brought up, so, go figure. I've yet to see anyone directly counter my arguments with proof (absolute) of their own. Talon discredited my source yes, but didn't bring up any of the arguments my source actually gave, which is what's really important in a debate.

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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 12:58 PM   #58
Loki
Savage
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,014
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.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 01:24 PM   #59
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muyotwo View Post
*My points are roundly mocked, I've shown notable ignorance over even fairly common knowledge facts like "Radiation is bad for humans".*
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".
Why such scorn? I never claimed to be infailable, and where I am shown to be wrong, I graciously accept correction. As you can clearly see from my past posts regarding radiation and my ignorance.

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:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
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.
It's only a flame war, when attacks on people and their arguments are being had. I'm open to new ideas, possible things I may have overlooked, and even being completely proven wrong, but will flatly refuse, "Everyone else says it's true, so it must be true, right? Right?! They even have shiny graphs and random numbers saying so!" Are you guys also prepared to say, "I may have been mistaken."?

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.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 03:35 PM   #60
Loki
Savage
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,014
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.
__________________
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 04:14 PM   #61
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,924
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.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2011, 10:29 PM   #62
Lady Kuno
Prepare to die
 
Lady Kuno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,173
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.
__________________
JUST NUKE THE FUCKING SUN

Spoiler: show
Lady Kuno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 08:46 PM   #63
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,159
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
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
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 09:47 PM   #64
Mozz
Golden Wang of Justice
 
Mozz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,924
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.
Mozz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 10:57 PM   #65
Talon87
Shenmue III, baby!
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,159
Send a message via AIM to Talon87
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.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 03:00 AM   #66
deoxys
こばやし だいすき~
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 私の尾を食べてください OwO
Posts: 6,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
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.

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.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2011, 01:01 PM   #67
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist resigns from global warming

Incontrovertible Evidence?
Scientific Consensus?

Apparently not. Perhaps we should remain skeptical of all "consensus" claims.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2011, 01:57 PM   #68
Emi
ACHILLESSSSS
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Agartha
Posts: 11,153
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist resigns from global warming

Incontrovertible Evidence?
Scientific Consensus?

Apparently not. Perhaps we should remain skeptical of all "consensus" claims.
One man does not make a statement false. The leading scientists in the 1800's fought tooth and nail that combustion was false, and that pholgliston was right.
__________________


Quote:
Zelphon - Today at 5:29 AM
If the current political climate has taught me anything
It's that a purge via gay witches may very well be necessary
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2011, 07:22 PM   #69
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
One man does not make a statement false. The leading scientists in the 1800's fought tooth and nail that combustion was false, and that pholgliston was right.
no, that's true, but it does say, "Hey Look, Global Warming is not quite the huge consensus we're telling you it is. Maybe we should be a bit more skeptical of things before accepting an unproven theory as absolute fact."


I'm going to be addressing Talon's links now. Currently looking into them.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2011, 09:09 PM   #70
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
In researching, I found this LOL worthy article:
US Debt is the cause of Global Warming!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Some reading:

Harvesting Geothermal Energy - NPR article from August 2008 about geothermal heating and cooling systems
Not really reading, 17 minutes of listening. Didn't seem to say much about global warming, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Quote:
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"
Your site claims that skeptics say the hockystick is the foundation for Global Warming, which is not the case. I say, correct, it is not the "foundation," however, it was Him and his first graph which made the claim that it global Warming was manmade, otherwise, no one would have thought anything of it.

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:
Response to "the elevated CO2 levels today are mostly natural and not manmade" (with an interesting tidbit about "fossil carbon + young oxygen" radioisotope dating! )
Wait, you're still sourcing this site?! How about some variety man? Surely you can't expect to get unbiased science when you only source one thing.
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:
“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”
And upon further research, I found this information as well:
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:
For more in this series, click here.
I think I've had quite enough of that site thank you. A Biased, Self-sourcer is my impression. That's not very credible IMO.

Quote:
"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.
More Audio? *sigh* Also, National Public Radio? Anything that gets Federal Funding, should be considered likely biased.

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:
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.
Wow that's long! You seriously only spent 30 minutes looking this stuff up?
I may have to come back to this later. For now, I'll Leave it at this:
Correllation does not necessitate Causation.

Quote:
CO2 levels at Mauna Loa from 1958 to 2007
For more readings from this source, check out their table of contents here.
Looks like the source data the other site used. I already addressed CO2 and Ice Cores.

Quote:
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.
Dang another long one. I don't think I'll have enough time tonight to address all these claims. Which ones would you like me to address first/most?

Quote:
Global Warming portal that has many links for readers of all climatology educational backgrounds
*sigh* More links I'm going to have to address individually? This is taxing. Why do I have to do all the work? It's science's job to prove itself, I shouldn't have to be standing (sitting actually) here trying to disprove a non consensus science...

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 08:48 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 02:42 PM   #71
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
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:
The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part.
Hmm, so, incorporating our evil coal burning into the natural CO2 fluxuations only counts for a thousandth part.

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:
Arrhenius did not see that as a problem. He figured that if industry continued to burn fuel at the current (1896) rate, it would take perhaps three thousand years for the CO2 level to rise so high. Högbom doubted it would ever rise that much. One thing holding back the rise was the oceans. According to a simple calculation, sea water would absorb 5/6ths of any additional gas. (That is roughly true over a long run of many thousand years, but Högbom and Arrhenius did not realize that if the gas were emitted more rapidly than they expected, the ocean absorption could lag behind.)
Don't you just love the little (gotcha) comments in ()? They make a claim, then state, (but this is not the case if certain conditions occurred) and then fail to provide any scientific evidence to support the secondary claim.

Quote:
Another highly respected scientist, Walter Nernst, even fantasized about setting fire to useless coal seams in order to release enough CO2 to deliberately warm the Earth's climate
I like this guy! And he's Highly Respected too, you should listen to him!

Quote:
Experts could dismiss the hypothesis [CO2 Causes Global Warming] because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ĺngström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)

Angstrom
Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(
This stands on it's own.

Quote:
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ĺngström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*)
Quote:
9. Koch had only a thermocouple to measure heat across the entire infrared spectrum. He accurately reported that about 10% of the radiation from a 100°C black body was absorbed in his tube, and that at lower pressure at most 9.6% was absorbed, whereas in fact it must have been about 9%. For the modern calculation I thank Raymond T. Pierrehumbert.
What calculation? All I see is a statement of fact without basis.

Quote:
The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
A fair enough argument.

Quote:
If somehow the oceans failed to stabilize the system, organic matter was another good candidate for providing what one scientist called "homeostatic regulation."(12) The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is only a small fraction of what is bound up not only in the oceans but also in trees, peat bogs, and so forth. Just as sea water would absorb more gas if the concentration increased, so would plants grow more lushly in air that was "fertilized" with extra carbon dioxide. Rough calculations seemed to confirm the comfortable belief that biological systems would stabilize the atmosphere by absorbing any surplus. One way or another, then, whatever gases humanity added to the atmosphere would be absorbed — if not at once, then within a century or so — and the equilibrium would automatically restore itself. As one respected expert put it baldly in 1948, "The self-regulating mechanisms of the carbon cycle can cope with the present influx of carbon of fossil origin."(13)
Why would this not be the case?

Quote:
Many people, looking at weather stories from the past, had been saying that a warming trend was underway. When Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, he found they were right. He went on to dig up and evaluate old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. He concluded that over the past hundred years the concentration of the gas had increased by about 10%. This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming.
Correlation does not equal Causation.


Quote:
Most damaging of all, Callendar's calculations of the greenhouse effect temperature rise, like Arrhenius's, ignored much of the real world's physics. For example, as one critic pointed out immediately, he only calculated how heat would be shuttled through the atmosphere by radiation, ignoring the crucial energy transport by convection as heated air rose from the surface (this deficiency would haunt greenhouse calculations through the next quarter-century). Worse, any rise in temperature would allow the air to hold more moisture, which would probably mean more clouds that would reflect sunlight and thus preserve the natural balance. Callendar admitted that the actual climate change would depend on interactions involving changes of cloud cover and other processes that no scientist of the time could reliably calculate.
Stands on it's own.

Quote:
With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Quote:
Lack of funds soon closed down the Antarctic station, but Keeling managed to keep the Mauna Loa measurements going with only a short hiatus. As the CO2 record extended it became increasingly impressive, each year noticeably higher. Soon Keeling's curve, jagged but inexorably rising, was widely cited by scientific review panels and science journalists.(40) For both scientists and the public it became the primary icon of the greenhouse effect.
Wait... He had to shut down the station that measured the pure air, but was able to keep the Volcano, which by it's nature, belches much CO2, and then compared the averages of the one with the Antarctic station with the one without it, and cited a rise in CO2?
Sounds like improper measurements to me.

Quote:
Leading scientists continued to doubt that anyone needed to worry at all about the greenhouse effect. The veteran climate expert Helmut Landsberg stressed in a 1970 review that little was known about how humans might change the climate. At worst, he thought, the rise of CO2 at the current rate might bring a 2°C temperature rise over the next 400 years, which "can hardly be called cataclysmic."(43) Meanwhile Hubert H. Lamb, the outstanding compiler of old climate data, wrote that the effects of CO2 were "doubtful... there are many uncertainties." The CO2 theory, he pointed out, failed to account for the numerous large shifts that he had uncovered in records of climate from medieval times to the present. Many agreed with Lamb that a "rather sharp decline" of global temperature that had been observed since the 1940s put the whole matter in question.(44)

At this time research on changes in the atmosphere's CO2 had been, almost by definition, identical to research on the greenhouse effect. But in the late 1970s and early 1980s, calculations found that methane and other gases emitted by human activities could have a greenhouse effect that was sometimes molecule for molecule tens or hundreds of times greater than CO2. Nevertheless most of the scientific interest continued to revolve around CO2.
Stands on it's own

Upon mention of Climate Models, I looked to the source, and found this:
Quote:
In the early 1980s, several groups pressed ahead toward more realistic models. They put in a reasonable facsimile of the Earth's actual geography, and replaced the wet "swamp" surface with an ocean that could exchange heat with the atmosphere. Thanks to increased computer power the models were now able to handle seasonal changes as a matter of course. It was also reassuring when Hansen's group and others got a decent match to the rise-fall-rise curve of global temperatures since the late 19th century, once they put in not only the rise of CO2 but also changes in emissions of volcanic dust and solar activity.
Adding a solar influence was a stretch, for nobody had figured out any plausible way that the superficial variations seen in numbers of sunspots could affect climate. To arbitrarily adjust the strength of the presumed solar influence in order to match the historical temperature curve was guesswork, dangerously close to fudging. But many scientists suspected there truly was a solar influence, and adding it did improve the match. Sometimes a scientist must "march with both feet in the air," assuming a couple of things at once in order to see whether it all eventually works out.(55) Reassured that they might be on the right track, in the 1980s climate modelers increasingly looked toward the future. When they introduced a doubled CO2 level into their improved models, they consistently found the same few degrees of warming.(56*)

The skeptics were not persuaded. The Charney panel itself had pointed out that much more work was needed before models would be fully realistic. The treatment of clouds remained a central uncertainty. Another great unknown was the influence of the oceans. Back in 1979 the Charney panel had warned that the oceans' enormous capacity for soaking up heat could delay an atmospheric temperature rise for decades. Global warming might not become obvious until all the surface waters had warmed up, which would be too late to take timely precautions.(57) This time lag was not revealed by the existing GCMs, for these computed only equilibrium states. The models, lacking nearly all the necessary data and thwarted by formidable calculational problems, simply did not account for the true influence of the oceans.

Massive international programs of data-gathering were beginning to solve one of the problems. Oceanographers were coming to realize that large amounts of energy were carried through the seas by a myriad of whorls of various types, from tiny convection swirls up to sluggish eddies a thousand kilometers wide. Calculating these whorls, like calculating all the world's individual clouds, was beyond the reach of the fastest computer. Again parameters had to be devised to summarize the main effects, only this time for entities that were far worse observed and understood than clouds. Modelers could only put in average numbers to represent the heat that they knew somehow moved vertically from layer to layer in the seas, and the energy somehow carried from warm latitudes toward the poles. They suspected that the actual behavior of the oceans might work out quite differently from their models. And even with the simplifications, to get anything halfway realistic required a vast number of computations, indeed more than for the atmosphere.
So, computer models are inaccurate, and require way too many variables that we can only approximate on.

Quote:
It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles. In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called "Milankovitch cycles") matched the timing of ice ages with startling precision. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia. As some had pointed out ever since the 19th century, in times when sunlight fell more strongly on northern latitudes in the spring, snow and sea ice would not linger so long; the dark earth and seawater would absorb more sunlight, and get warmer. However, calculations showed that this subtle effect should cause no more than a small regional warming. How could almost imperceptible changes in the angle of sunlight cause entire continental ice sheets to build up and melt away?


The new ice cores suggested that a powerful feedback amplified the changes in sunlight. The crucial fact was that a slight warming would cause the level of greenhouse gases to rise slightly. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as the vast Arctic tundras warmed up, the bogs would emit more CO2 (and another greenhouse gas, methane, also measured in the ice with a lag behind temperature). The greenhouse effect of these gases would raise the temperature a little more, which would cause more emission of gases, which would... and so forth, hauling the planet step by step into a warm period. Many thousands of years later, the process would reverse when the sunlight falling in key latitudes weakened. Bogs and oceans would absorb greenhouse gases, ice would build up, and the planet would slide back into an ice age. This finally explained how tiny shifts in the Earth's orbit could set the timing of the enormous swings of glacial cycles.
Thank you.
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:
In the first decade of the 21st century, international panels of experts reviewed the evidence, and announced conclusions that were checked by virtually all the major national science academies, scientific societies, government science agencies and other bodies representative of scientific expertise. All these bodies agreed that the world faced a serious problem; all recommended that governments adopt strict policies to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. (All, that is, except a few self-appointed panels composed primarily of people with limited expertise in climate science, representing ideological and business interests that opposed all forms of government regulation.) Individual climate scientists, while almost unanimously in agreement with the consensus in its broad outlines, continued to argue vehemently over details, as always in frontier research. Critics pounced on every apparent discrepancy. They published long lists of scientists who denied there was any problem — although the lists included hardly any scientist who had made significant contributions to climate research.(58*) Debate over policies to restrict emissions grew increasingly intense.
An Appeal to Authority, of which is highly suspect, due to the intervention of government and it's possible agendas.
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:
DENIAL MYTH #6: 450 million years ago was the coldest in 0.5 billion years and also had the highest CO2 concentrations. Because of this, CO2 is not actually correlated global temperature (Source: distillation of multiple people’s claims at Wikipedia.org).
Debunking: Scientists aren’t sure what happened in the late Ordovecian period, when the world plunged into an ice age while CO2 levels were still very high (8-20x current levels). There are some ideas about what happened, however. A 1995 paper titled Reconciling Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation with very high (14X) CO2 levels suggests that the physical location of the megacontinent Gondwanaland may have had something to do with it, and later papers suggest that the problem could be one of resolution of the data – if we can’t tell what the CO2 levels were at the moment of glaciation, then we can’t say whether CO2 being removed from the atmosphere was the cause or not. And if the high CO2 levels plunged due to geologic processes (namely the rise of the Appalachian Mountains and a subsequent carbon sequestration due to the weathering of the mountains), then there would be a mechanism to explain how the CO2 was high while the temperature was also high – the data isn’t detailed enough to know better, so it was actually a lot lower than 8x-20x present day when Gondwanaland froze up. In fact, this identical process is proposed as the cause for the most recent spate of ice ages, with the Himalaya Mountains being the cause. However, ultimately we just don’t know enough about this particular instance to say for sure.

However, the correlation of CO2 and global temperature is well established over the last 650,000 years using ice core data. The image (click for a larger version) is a composite created by the IPCC from multiple different sources for the WG1 AR4 chapter 6 on Paleoclimate, Figure 6.3, page 444. The black line shows a proxy for local temperature (deuterium), the green line is nitrous oxide, the red line is CO2, the blue line is methane, and the gray line is a proxy for land ice (low=more glaciers/larger ice caps). Notice that not only is CO2 concentration correlated with temperature, but so is methane concentration.But the most interesting part of this graph is the three stars in the upper right corner of the image. They are to scale with the associated lines and represent the 2000 concentrations of nitrous oxide (green star), CO2 (red star), and methane (blue star).
Interesting. So, scientists don't know what caused this abnormality, yet they claim that without exception, that CO2 rising, means rising Temperatures.

Not to mention is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not necessitate Causation.

Quote:
DENIAL MYTH #10: There was a significant period of global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. This cooling period existed as anthropogenic CO2 levels were rising significantly. If anthropogenic CO2 is more important than natural drivers, then this cooling period would not exist, yet it does (Sources: produced by Rcronk in the comments to Eastern seaboard of the United States to be much hotter, but also made in the Wikipedia.org claims).
Debunking: That this cooling period existed and was global in scope is not disputable as the scope of the MWP is – scientists were directly monitoring temperatures globally by this point, and these three decades were cooler than the decades preceding them and dramatically cooler than recent decades. So what caused the cooling?

First, there is a correlation between sunspots and solar irradiance (output) on the Earth. During this period, sunspots were less common and there was less solar energy reaching the Earth, allowing it to cool slightly. Second, there were several volcanic eruptions that released massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol that forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the high atmosphere and reflects solar energy back into space, so these two volcanic eruptions had some short- to medium-term effects. In addition, prior to the 1970s there were limited pollution controls, allowing pollutant aerosols to act as coolants via reflection of solar radiation. Ultimately, though, it is believed that sometime after 1970 the concentration of CO2 rose to the point that solar forcing was no longer the dominant climate factor, anthropogenic CO2 was. (Sources: Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?, Swindled!)
Interestingly enough, he just proved that warming is drastically effected by Solar Activity, as well as reflective clouds. And had to make a last ditch appeal as the last sentence to recover his case, "it's believed that CO2 eventually outweighed those factors as dominant factors and is now is the only cause for global warming."

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:
DENIAL MYTH #11: Cosmic rays (very high energy particles) striking the Earth’s atmosphere is the cause of global heating (Source: distillation of multiple people’s claims at Wikipedia.org).
Debunking: According to this theory, cosmic rays are responsible for cloud cover – fewer cosmic rays means fewer clouds and less cooling in the summer (clouds reflect the energy) and more heating in the winter (as clouds hold heat in). Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any statistically significant trend in the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, and the few experiments performed to date appear to be stricken with error or a failure to address key points. This could be an aggravating factor, but is highly unlikely to be the primary source of global heating. (Sources: No Link Between Cosmic Rays and Global Warming, Cosmic Rays and Global Warming, Recent Warming but No Trend In Galactic Cosmic Rays)
No debunking done here at all. "It could be a an aggravating factor, but it's unlikely to be the cause,"
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:
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 194 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.
There is no good reason for governments to involve themselves in this research, and they have historically used Global Warming as a case to steal ever more power, authority and freedoms from We the People.

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:
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 12:36 AM   #72
Shuckle
Mage of Mind
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Land of Thought and Melody
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
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.
The Chesapeake Bay waves a sheepish hello. Us on the East Coast fucked it up pretty badly a few years ago and it's still recovering.

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:
Originally Posted by Crichton
“You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened?

Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”
tl;dr: There is no tl;dr, numbnuts. Get back up there and read the 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?
__________________

Spoiler: show
[The Sorcerer's Ambition]A handy link, to be sure.
Level Acquisitions, sorted by level instead of name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Shuckle's awesomeness level continues to rise.
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 12:55 AM   #73
deoxys
こばやし だいすき~
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 私の尾を食べてください OwO
Posts: 6,482
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.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 04:55 PM   #74
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
The Chesapeake Bay waves a sheepish hello. Us on the East Coast fucked it up pretty badly a few years ago and it's still recovering.

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.

tl;dr: There is no tl;dr, numbnuts. Get back up there and read the 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?
Sometimes inaction, is the best action. Especially when Government is involved.

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:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
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.
Responding responsibly to a perceived threat is always the best action, one I applaud all those who actually do something for. I'm not against being a Responsible steward over the Earth, and I like much green technology, there's nothing wrong with it being developed either.

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 05:09 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2011, 05:05 PM   #75
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 6,962
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
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.
Nice idea, but the problem is human beings as a species are total asshats. No-one who makes even the slightest profit out of fossil fuels is going to give up a source of income to try to solve the problems unless forced to do so.

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:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 12-23-2011 at 05:19 PM. Reason: Fixed up a derptastic sentence
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.