Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I suppose that people can try to manage the economy, fix things up in Iraq and any other countries for now, and see to it that other countries like China and India would peacefully work with America, but we had better try to help the environment. It's the safest thing to do as there is nothing to lose perminantly even if catastrophic conditions end up not being controlable by humans. As you said, our evidence still shows that we can have "little to no control". By your words, this means that we may still have "little" control over these issues. Even still, evidence can be wrong to a degree as that is why there is a lot of dispute in America.

[irishknight]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Does global warming really exist or is it some kind of hoax? If it is real, should something be done now to stop it or we don't have to panic yet? Is our government being ignorant by trying to deny its existence?

I think that global warming does exist and is getting worse everyday. The weather has changed a lot lately. People should try their best to keep their environment clean and live in energy effecient homes. We should try to cut back on car emissions and use less vehicles. Once India and China have completely modernized there will be more vehicles being used and possibly more gas producing factories. It is never to early to start ending global warming. All of the denial in government makes me think that the U.S. is run by a bunch of idiots. It is plain to see that global warming is occuring and if we don't do something about it then there is no reason in trying to make the middle east into a democracy. Everyone should just give up and burn or drown to death.

If we keep trying to restore our ozone layers at this rate, it will fully recover in the 2070's...

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

talisman, now you're contributing logical fallacy to the thread?

Show me the evidence that positively links human activity to global warming.

Master_of_the_Faster... You want to condemn all developing nations so they can't use fossil fuels and develop?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Look, yes I want to "condemn all developing nations so they can't use fossil fuels" if it can thoroughly be proved to by the majority of people to be absolutely necessary to be sacrificed, but that doesn't mean they can't develop in any other ways. After all, a developing nation isn't just about making money off of producing so much pollution. Some countries might even benefit financially by helping the environmental cause.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Not how it works nezeru. If you stake a position, you have to back it up. Your stated position was that evidence suggests that anything we do will have no impact on climate change. The onus is on you to provide evidence in support of your position, not on me to provide evidence against it.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I know that I haven't completely backed up my ideas about how other countries could benefit financially from helping to stop global warming, but I'm sure that some people may have an idea about what I mean. I will get back to that idea or someone else may finish it up, but I agree with talisman that any statistics about humans not having much or any effect on catastrophic conditions that may occur as a result of global warming really need to be shown.

[aperson]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Not how it works nezeru. If you stake a position, you have to back it up. Your stated position was that evidence suggests that anything we do will have no impact on climate change. The onus is on you to provide evidence in support of your position, not on me to provide evidence against it.

You stated that evidence suggests that the things we do have an impact on the environment. Therefore, the onus is on you to bring up evidence to support your position.



You're doing what I call the 'idiot argument.' Stop.

[devonin]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

You stated that evidence suggests that the things we do have an impact on the environment. Therefore, the onus is on you to bring up evidence to support your position.
You're doing what I call the 'idiot argument.' Stop.

Nezeru could take the opportunity to be clever and point out that he is being asked to prove a negative, which is inherently impossible.

Like this: My proof that human actions have no effect on climate change is your inability to prove that they do.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

no ap.

I stated that earlier, and already backed it up earlier by posting the link to the ipcc report, which I regard as a near-definitive summation of the vast body of scientific literature dealing with current climate change.

this is a different situation, where he made a statement essentially claiming that any actions we take now will have no impact. He specifically said that "evidence" supports this. I'm asking to see that evidence. My request does not equate to me taking a contrary position. It's literally me just asking for him to substantiate that particular statement by providing the "evidence" he referred to. And I am correct, the onus is on him to support his own position, not on me to tear it away (unless I am taking a contrary position). A position cannot be "accepted" just because no one has challenged it; it must be first supported.

[frankiesmithra24]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I think it's real because of the way the weather has been acting lately. If you haven't noticed the news last night. One of the towns by me had a tornado come through and rip everything apart. That is unnatural considering there is a lot of mountains out by me and we really don't see that happening.

[Tps222]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Sigh.

Do not use short term weather in discussions about global warming. People will laugh and you will look stupid.

Is global warming real? Yes. The Earth is getting warmer, this is a fact.

Is it caused by us? I'm sure it is to some degree. I can't imagine that we can do anything we want and have absolutely zero effect on the atmosphere, so we at least have some part.

That means that we can cut back on CO2 emissions. We can see how much that changes the warming, which will indicate how much we contributed to the initial problem. I'm pretty much in concurrence with AP on this one.

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Master_of_the_Faster, your blatant racism and lack of caring for other humans is painful to read, so I'm no longer going to reply to your irrelevant posts.

Talisman, for a reply to the IPCC work, please watch the aforementioned documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. You seem to think there are no arguments with it, while that video has some of the "authors" of the document you linked claiming that it was fraudulent. Also, the logical fallacy you are continuously committing is what was pointed out by devonin. It's not 'being clever,' though, because your argument truly does make no sense.

I claimed that there is no evidence that positively links human activity to global warming.

You told me to prove it with evidence.

....

If you still don't understand why your argument doesn't work, please take a psychology class. You can't prove that there is no evidence toward something. That's what devonin was saying. The evidence to back up my claim is a refutation of evidence previously mentioned.

1. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas. Simply factually inaccurate. Water vapor is by far more important.
2. Humans produce most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Also inaccurate.
3. Carbon dioxide in the past has led to higher temperatures. Again, simply not true. Higher temperatures lead to more carbon dioxide in the air, as Roese said in the documentary, because the ocean releases carbon dioxide when it warms up.
4. Humans are causing global warming. This is possible, although solar activity is a far more likely culprit.
5. We should cut back on carbon dioxide emissions and stop other countries from emitting carbon dioxide. This is probably the most proposterous argument I have ever read. Fossil fuel burning is the only way for many developing, struggling nations to pull through. Millions of people die every year because of these stupid politics. Read the last third of my essay in an earlier post, the part about politicized science. Eugenics, the banning of DDT, power line scares, etc... These mistakes can cost lives. Eugenics lead DIRECTLY to the Holocaust. The banning of DDT lead DIRECTLY to millions of deaths by malaria. Lysenko's faulty genetics lead DIRECTLY to the ruining of Russian agriculture.

People need to think about every aspect of the argument.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I'll remind you of what you said (emphasis added):

and evidence points to us having little to no control over it anyway.

To which I responded

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

Therefore this

I claimed that there is no evidence that positively links human activity to global warming.

is NOT what you claimed, or at least, not the claim to which I was responding.

To summarize:

You made a positive assertion (repeated above) in which you reference evidence. I asked you to provide this evidence. You have not done so.


---

Now, I simply refuse to take the word of a documentary--any documentary--over the word of thousands of scientists who have spent careers working in the field. If they, who aren't out to promote a particular viewpoint, who all disagree with each other on all the various details, can still all agree that there's a greater than 90% chance that global warming is due to human activity, then I feel more than confident in trusting their judgment.

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

If you read the ENTIRE essay that he wrote, then you would have understood everything. He gave the evidence that he had, and then at the end showed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove ANYTHING, just evidence in the favor of human activity having close to no effect on Global Warming.

Also, there are thousands of scientists who agree that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon and that humans have close to no effect on it. So because thousands of scientists agree with that side, do you agree with them to? Of course not, because, "people are stupid and will believe anything either because they are afraid that it might be true, or because they want it to be." You were told that your life and the life of your children is in danger and you freaked out, so automatically you want to make sure that that's not the case. This being so, you refuse to accept any other argument despite what evidence you're given.

@ frankiesmithra24: Tornadoes occur in the Rocky Mountain Shadow all the time. The Midwest United States is famous for it's tornadoes and it's right after a mountain range, so your argument holds no bearing on any Global Warming side, pro or con.

master_of_the_faster and talisman.. Nothing that either of you has said has made any sense, and all you keep doing is trying to spin the argument around in circles to hopefully get us dizzy enough to not see straight anymore or to give up. You have no solid evidence that humans are a huge force in causing global warming.

EDIT: Sorry, I have to respond to this one.

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.

He never said Global Warming isn't happening, he said it's not caused by humans, and it's not any big problem as of right now. And as has been stated since the early pages of this debate, when temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. That doesn't mean that when CO2 goes up that temperature goes up. Please, read that sentence a few times until it gets through your head. Temperature = Effects on CO2. CO2 =/= Effects on Temperature.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

there are thousands of scientists who agree that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon and that humans have close to no effect on it.

bull****, unless you really loosely define "scientist". There is absolutely no way that there are thousands of climate scientists, who have studied recent climate change, that claim that. I demand you back that up.

Also, his essay, as I understand it, and even as he tried to say later, was not about whether or not humans cause global warming (tangentially, somewhat), but was about hysteria and misconceptions surrounding global warming. His thesis dealt with the politicization of global warming, not explicitly with whether or not humans cause it.

edit, just noticed this

You have no solid evidence that humans are a huge force in causing global warming.

read this for an overview of the solid evidence: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html