Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[devonin]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

So you do think global warming is happening? I'm confused. Your essay appeared to argue we didn't know nearly enough, but if CO2 was higher and temperatures were higher then there is no argument against CO2 raising the temperature.

I'm just going to let you read that until you figure out what's wrong with your logic.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is lots of fun.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Nezeru just state your position.

Also, if anyone really wants to refute global warming, then refute this:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

[madmatt621]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Nezeru just state your position.

Also, if anyone really wants to refute global warming, then refute this:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

I've been looking for that link.

EDIT: If you watch Forecast Earth on The Weather Channel, they occasionally talk about global warming and how you can help.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I've been looking for that link.

Fantastic.

Quit posting off-topic.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is lots of fun.

My argument is that he has no argument against global warming. How is this false cause. He's just beating around the bush, like most people, and this is half the problem.

Not to mention this should be a scientific debate, not a logical one. Most people here are completely ignoring the science that shows that global warming is a real problem.

Either way, his statement that CO2 levels have been higher in the past is a dirty argument. You're only telling people half the story...the half that is convincing.

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

My argument is that he has no argument against global warming. How is this false cause. He's just beating around the bush, like most people, and this is half the problem.

Not to mention this should be a scientific debate, not a logical one. Most people here are completely ignoring the science that shows that global warming is a real problem.

Either way, his statement that CO2 levels have been higher in the past is a dirty argument. You're only telling people half the story...the half that is convincing.

And you're doing any differently? My comment that CO2 levels were higher in the past is true and ignored by the vast majority of people. My real point is that nobody knows how much of the present warming trend is natural and how much is caused by man, and that we need to do more research in climate.

Also, about the IPCC link posted earlier, that has been discussed and refutations of points have been published in numerous scientific journals. I'll post links when I find them.

[ghosx]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Watch this and tell me ur still not convinced that global warming is just a scam

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Ah, yes, clearly watching that video has me completely convinced.

Honestly, you can't cite one reference as the defining argument for either side.

However, the video is very interesting. =) It expresses many of the same points that I outlined in earlier posts.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I know that I have said that I wouldn't post in the critical section because whatever I "rant" would lead to me getting banned for life. However, since a few people are interested in how my "antireligious" views come into play with global warming, I will make it clear. I'm sure that many of you are familiar with Al Gore's Inconvenient truth right? When I saw that movie in my government class, I asked about what controversies there were. From reading about environmental policy, I knew that automobile industries might get mad from adjusting their ways (a little common sense might I add). People like the environment, but not enough to change their lifestyle. I really don't like people who stand against environmentalists and even my teacher and book said "It is a foolish politican who today opposes environmentalism," but I can tolerate them enough because they have a legitimate arguement where maybe global warming just may not be as important as money (not to say I agree with that at all). This is quite a natural dispute between activists and conservatives, but as soon as my teacher told me about another controversy, I became sickened. He said that he wouldn't let his child see Al Gore's movie unless the schools showed the "other side". This "other side" was that the world would end in seven years, Christians would go to heaven, and that it wouldn't matter if we pollute the world. Honestly, how ignorant can man be? That's where they cross my line and partially turn me into an "antireligious" person who "rants". I mean I asked my teacher what would happen if this "other side" never proved to be right in seven years and he replies that they will simply reschedule the dates. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate everyone or their religious ideas since I believe there is an equal chance for all possibilities to occur. In this case, the most reasonable thing to do would be to not pollute or limit pollution in the environment because reguardless of whether any belief of the world ending is right or wrong, these people cannot lose anything by being a bit more caring for our environment unless they believe it's too costly.

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

You're completely ignoring the factual, non-industry-based debates.

In the aforementioned video on Google, 14:20-14:50 for anyone who's saying water vapor isn't an important greenhouse gas.

[Izzi]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

No, you don't.

The Earth will go on with or without us; it's just a ball of rock and water. Lots of life could suffer, but not all. Life will continue even if humanity DOES wipe itself off the earth.

@Xack: I did the same thing with the "Stop genocide in Africa" group.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I dont think the earth will ever die until the sun or something swallows it up. Once we do enough to the earth that it kills us off it will probably stabalize itself again.

Also i know what you mean about christians faster. I hate how they think if they admit they did something wrong that it makes it better.

[aperson]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I'm sick and tired of all this god damn cherrypicking going on in the global warming debate. Obviously, both sides can sit back and pick apart whatever graphs they want to choose to use on their side because there is so much data available. What's that, our model doesn't fit on this temperature model? Well damn, better try another one. That's the kind of cherrypicking that's going on in both The Great Swindle and An Inconvenient Truth as well as a lot of the crap that's being tossed around by academia as well.

We're sitting here and trying to pick apart an intricate chain of causality by throwing trying to pin everything back to the stupidly fallibe concept of a single root cause.. Since we're obviously caught in a loop of misleading graphs and politically charged diatribes from both sides of the field, I think we should just take a more pragmatic approach:

Reduce our CO2 emissions, be conscious of our pollution, etc.... If global warming continues to rise oh well we weren't right now were we. If it stops, good, we're doing the right thing.

Maybe if we stop sitting back on our thrones arguing cause and purpose and instead actually test some of our hypotheses (which should be testable, after all we're making claims that these temperature rises are occuring with very short lag times based on CO2 emissions), we'll get somewhere besides this massively tangled loop of cherrypicking that everyone in this thread, the media, and the scientific community are doing.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I know that I have completely liberal and antireligious biased ideas, but I agree that the only way to really know this global warming issue is to take action and see what happens. I mean isn't that what scientists do? Sure they calculate all of these graphs about CO2 levels rising and who/what causes pollution which may or may not be true, but they could also test whether or not by actually taking action, we are doing something right as aperson said above me. However, I would like to include why I don't agree with conservatives who tend to raise scary statements about the economic pain an American cut in greenhouse gasses will cause. We can always take the chance of being poor as heck because we know that America has what it takes to get out of any depressions, which everyone knows has happened, but we can't take the chance of dying to catastrophic conditions.

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Master_of_the_Faster, there is no evidence that catastrophic conditions are in any way imminent, and evidence points to us having little to no control over it anyway.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

What evidence? Show us the evidence that says that our action now will have no effect on future warming.