Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[hayatewillown]

Government propaganda. Exactly what it is.

[Kilroy_x]

What what is? Global warming or Earth Dating methods? Either way you'd have a very hard time showing either to be the case.

[nintendo1980]

how can it be fake? the proof is everyware. I think we can stop it if the govenmet takes action.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by nintendo1980

how can it be fake? the proof is everyware. I think we can stop it if the govenmet takes action.

Who is 'we'? Which government? Do you think if laws are enacted in one country they will have any measurable effect at all globally?

[Orch_Dork]

Originally Posted by devonin

Who is 'we'? Which government? Do you think if laws are enacted in one country they will have any measurable effect at all globally?

thats exactly what i think

but it has been proven to be true. Lets just hope we die before anyting really drastic happens.

[Nightfirecat]

Originally Posted by devonin

Who is 'we'? Which government? Do you think if laws are enacted in one country they will have any measurable effect at all globally?

'we' would be the citizens and inhabitants of the world as it is now. As for those laws-- if there were a law enacted in China forbidding the creation and purchasing of cars, then the world would be able to take a deep breath knowing that it would be taking in so many fewer horrible greenhouse gasses. Anyway, as others have already said, look around you. Evidence is everywhere, knowledge is becoming very common, and the non-believers are being rooted out and proven wrong. Global warming is soon to become the next human rights movement on a global scale (I say this in the way that it will become a popular belief that it should be ended) That's my two cents on the matter, moving on to the general forum section

[devonin]

Let me put it this way then: Even if it is genuine (which I believe) Even if it is -mostly- caused by humans (which I don't believe) you are being completely and utterly unrealistic if you think that some massive global effort will even be suggested, let alone carried out.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by devonin

Let me put it this way then: Even if it is genuine (which I believe) Even if it is -mostly- caused by humans (which I don't believe) you are being completely and utterly unrealistic if you think that some massive global effort will even be suggested, let alone carried out.

Well are you saying that we shouldn't do anything about our world and just let what ever happen to the world happen? Do you honestly believe that humans could not have any effect on aiding the global warming issue if it really is an issue to be concerned with or mentioned? I'm just asking because I'm not too sure about this topic to be honest.

[Kilroy_x]

There's actually the possibility that government action would do much more harm than good, even with something such as this.

[devonin]

given humanity's extremely high opinion of itself, it would almost certainly come up with some hairball scheme to "fix" the problem that could have catastophic consequences, since while we do have some understanding of the issue, and how our biosphere is functioning, it wasn't that long ago that someone thought it would be smart to test a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere, which could well have destroyed us all.

[Kilroy_x]

I was thinking more along the lines of economic processes. Restricting greenhouse gas emissions would also harm production. If there is technology still a certain number of generations away from existence which could prevent or mitigate global warming, preventing the most efficient forms of production is actually preventative or at least detrimental of a solution to global warming.

[devonin]

That's actually a really good point, and one that I've never seen phrased so excellently. The idea that the net effect of restrictions on industry to preserve the environment is to slow the ability of industry to develop more efficient means to preserve the environment...I like it.

Its like that old saw that if it is simply lack of funding preventing the cure of cancer, the best way to cure it would be to infect the richest dozen people in the world with cancer. A surefire way to encourage industry to develop more environmentally safe practices would be to simply offer a substantial enough reward for it to encourage them to work at it, instead of limiting their ability to function at all.

[Kilroy_x]

It's largely conceptual. However the possibility increases as the effects of restriction increase. Most economists wouldn't argue that there should be no regulation, but would instead advocate forms of restriction which least harm production while still being effective. Effluent charges for instance.

Edit: Well, I don't doubt that rich people have cancer, although less educated/poorer (not that the two are synonymous, just indicating the form of census) people are more likely to have it. The motivation for curing cancer is also there, carried by the profit motive like most other things in a market.

The issue isn't one of artificially increasing reward or punishment, because the cost of the reward or punishment even if effective will manifest elsewhere. The likelihood that additional incentive would be needed to find a cure for cancer is also low. What both issues are conceivably, if they bear any similarity, are issues of time preference.

In both cases the market mechanism which would have responsibility for both conservation and development is the investment preferences of individuals. If trees are expected to be much more valuable in the future, for instance, then as soon as it foreseeable for trees to be a good investment as such investments of that sort will be made. The payout of a cancer cure is very foreseeable, so it's only natural to assume the market is functioning to the best of its ability because investment in this field is transparent with a high payout. Taking money forcibly from other sources for a cancer cure just makes other parts of the market operate suboptimally.

The same is conceivably true of the environment, except of course the environment is commonly thought of as a true prisoners dilemma. Time preference might have limited effect on trees in terms of preservation at the moment, although this isn't necessarily a problem . However, other pollution problems might have effects far reaching enough to consider imposing restrictions legitimate.

Ironically, it is conceivable that government preservation of resources actually prevents or lessens the markets treatment of conservation as a time preference issue, going back to the original statement of possibility.

[Aa_Doodaa]

Alright guys, all the serious hardcore CT forum people who've posted on this thread HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT, AND WATCH IT BEGINNING TO END.
I think it's a great explanation of the Global warming being real or fake thing, with the most reasonable conclusion. Here's the link:

http://break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[Mythiqudame]

We can deny it all we want.

Global warming is real. And it didn't just happen all of a sudden, either. The ice caps didn't totally melt on one random day and make headlines in the news.

And one more thing:

Wikipedia = Google

Google = Randomness

Glad we cleared something up.

[fireking550]

I think global warming is real, all the events that are changing the earths features (polor ice caps melting) didn't happen because the earth felt like they should happen. Its a problem we caused and should be dealing with.

Instead however our goverments are 2 busy spending most of their time on war than to fix all the problems in the world. So basically im saying goverment dosen't care or believe in global warming so if someone wants to try to stop it or prevent their going to have to get groups together and do it by themselves.

[otcblackpanther]

Ah, I wish people were smarter about these kinds of things. Good job with knowing what you are talking about Guido, you are one of the only ones.

[Raziel_Darkeden]

Haven't you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? I mean Al Gore says it's true, so it must be true. Al Gore wouldn't lie to us would he?

[devonin]

He -did- invent the internet, after all.

[ljw5021]

I believe global warming exists, definitely. You can't sit here and say that mankind has had no impact on our environment. However, I don't think it is as big of a problem as morons as Al Gore make it seem. Right now global warming is a political toy. It's one of those minute issues that is played off as a major one to draw voters in. A well-read and educated voter recognizes these ploys through research.