The global warming debate lets agree there is one

[siegmeow]

I don't should know if I should post this at B&M but the people I want to reach with this message are here.

I really don't care what people believe in honestly. As far as I'm concerned believe what you like my care factor is 0. But the moment somebody says that they start pushing their views down my throat then it shits me and a lot of other people.

This is what is happening of the proponets of global warming they are pushing views down peoples throats and not allowing any oppisition. Like one totse member said "people who are against global warming are being treated lik holocaust deniers." I ask why the people who support global warming here why do you deny people myself and others with similar views a voice?

Look all I'm asking for here is a voice. I mean to be perfectly honest I'm sick of getting fogged off by these people, all I want and others like myself just want a chance to voice our views without getting shot down I think that is a just and fair ask.

[Real.PUA]

Because 99% of your arguments have been utterly refuted and for the most part are unscientific. You cannot choose what is fact and what isn't. Facts are facts, you either acknowledge them or live in denial. Logic is also logic, your arguments are either logical or they are not. If they are not logical, prepare to be mocked.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-02-2007).]

[Real.PUA]

Here's an example of you being utterly refuted.

quote:Originally posted by siegmeow:



Jesus homophobic christ you are fucking retarded. Past global warming trends don't matter? Past global warming trends do matter because you can compare the warming we are having now. If in the past the earth had the same sort of temperature rise in the same time period of time you can say this sort of warming is normal. Plus your metapohr has nothing to do with the argument.

Right, that's why all the nobel prize winners and top climate scientists agree that the current warming trend has been accelerated by human activity (and only the creationist retard George Bush denies it). I'm in the camp with the nobels, you're in the camp with the retards.

Whether or not the earth has warmed in the past has no bearing on how humans are affecting the current warming trend. This is called logic. Logic is something that is required to understand science.

Using your same retard logic I demonstrated that me shooting you in the head did not kill you. People were killed thousands of years before guns were invented. Thus, guns have nothing to do with the killing that is going on today. Replace "people being killed" with "the earth warming" and "guns" with "greenhouse gases" and we have your exact argument, retard logic still intact.

[Seriously]

I have no problem hearing the other side of an arguement, but try to support it with facts. I haven't read any of your posts except what is quoted above so I'm not accusing you of anything.

quote:If in the past the earth had the same sort of temperature rise in the same time period of time you can say this sort of warming is normal.

That needs to have happened more than once or twice to be considered normal I think. And the causes of such an event need to be determined. If it was a meteor impact or volcanic eruption I wouldn't consider that normal and we would have to take into account that, that is not happening now.

The thing is, 928 articles on climate change have been published in peer reviewed articles and none of them disagree on the fact that global climate change is occuring. Nor do any of them disagree on the causes of current climate change.

Also we do have what the IPCC has said. While some have argued about the IPCC not performing experimental tests or not being made up of scientists, well, here is some background on the IPCC . . .

"It does not do its own research, but rather assesses published data to provide regular updates on the state of our knowledge about climate change.

The report has around 130 lead authors, including meteorologists and climatologists from across the world.

The three reports will bring together the work of hundreds of scientists. More than 800 scientists have contributed, and more than 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries have been involved. At least 2,500 expert reviewers have looked over, and commented on, the draft versions.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and its reports are reviewed by governments as well as experts. They were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the report, and the lead authors will have taken into account their contributions when putting together the final version."

[boozehound420]

There are scientists trying to bring additional information and research to the table to add to the factors of Co2's effects on the atmosphere. And there having alot of trouble. Science has always been this way, strict debate and skepticism. Buts its additionaly hard for these scientists to get there opinions recognized because there insantly labeled anti envirnment corporation puppets.

All they can do is submit a few papers to the news. Then go back into the science community and try and get there information heard.

If we spend 50-100 years stopping co2 output without researching other possible causes by that time we might be all fucked!! There are more then one reasons why we should stop burning fossil fuels, and lots of poeple know this. It sucks are society thinks that the best way to get thigns done is through fear!

People ignored it when science was explaining that these emmisions are causing cancer and desease rates to climb. People ignored it when science explained the polution is destroying and contaminating our water, in turn giving us more desease and killing wild life.

But now there is a new fear tool to be used, and its working so people are reluctant to look into other information, because we already know people wont stop for animal and human health reasons.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 03-02-2007).]

[jumpinjackpower]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Because 99% of your arguments have been utterly refuted and for the most part are unscientific. You cannot choose what is fact and what isn't. Facts are facts, you either acknowledge them or live in denial. Logic is also logic, your arguments are either logical or they are not. If they are not logical, prepare to be mocked.

[siegmeow]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Because 99% of your arguments have been utterly refuted and for the most part are unscientific. You cannot choose what is fact and what isn't. Facts are facts, you either acknowledge them or live in denial. Logic is also logic, your arguments are either logical or they are not. If they are not logical, prepare to be mocked.



When did you're opinion become of higher value than mine? For you're information I always used to be a stromng believer in climate change and I would do everything possible to save on greenhouse gases. I did the fucking research and I won't be willfully force fed like the rest of the mouth breeders out there. People like you shit me I hope you're enjoing it there on you're ivory tower.

Anwser me this why do people like al gore refuse to have a debate? Surely you can mob the floor with our asses couldn't you?

And also I'll make this very clear to you. Past Global warming trends matter because if in the past the earth had the same sort of warming trend as we are having now it would mean its normal. Also your metaphor is fucking retarded seriously. Why use a metaphor about guns when you're talking about climate. Have you checked when the theory of gravity changed? No it hasn't but only 37 years ago every scientist thought that greenhouse gases was casuing global cooling why in such a short amount of time has it changed?

Even if you're right you're still a hypocrit. You produce as much greenhouse gases as any other person yet you preach to everyone else to cut down when you don't.

P.S The biggest cause of global warming is cattle (Spoken by the retards who support global warming) cattle have been around over thousands of years surely the earth should be some sort of burning hell right now?

[Real.PUA]

quote:Originally posted by siegmeow:

When did you're opinion become of higher value than mine? For you're information I always used to be a stromng believer in climate change and I would do everything possible to save on greenhouse gases. I did the fucking research and I won't be willfully force fed like the rest of the mouth breeders out there. People like you shit me I hope you're enjoing it there on you're ivory tower.

Opinions obtain there value from the reasons that a person believes them. The science is clear on global warming. Your opinions are worthless because there arent logical and they arent based on FACT. Science OWNS facts, science is based on FACT. The FACTS indicate that humans activity in accelerating the global warming trend.

quote:Anwser me this why do people like al gore refuse to have a debate? Surely you can mob the floor with our asses couldn't you?

The debate has been had. The debate is over. The scientific community has come to a consensus. There is nothing left to debate. If someone comes up with a brand new study that is very strong evidence for an alternative theory then there will be something to discuss. That theory will however have to fit in with all the rest of the existing data (which consists of THOUSANDS of studies).

quote:And also I'll make this very clear to you. Past Global warming trends matter because if in the past the earth had the same sort of warming trend as we are having now it would mean its normal.

It doesnt matter if a warming trend is "normal" or not. What matters is how humans are affecting THIS CURRENT WARMING TREND. Again, lack of logic is your failing.

quote:Also your metaphor is fucking retarded seriously. Why use a metaphor about guns when you're talking about climate.

Because it illustrates your complete lack of logic.

quote:Have you checked when the theory of gravity changed? No it hasn't but only 37 years ago every scientist thought that greenhouse gases was casuing global cooling why in such a short amount of time has it changed?

Actually the theory of gravity has changed from newton to einstein. Your understanding of the history of global cooling is also flawed. You havent even bothered to take a cursory glance at the publications from the time have you? You are just regurgitating fox news blather. Have you read ANY peer reviewed scientific paper of global warming? http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

quote:Even if you're right you're still a hypocrit. You produce as much greenhouse gases as any other person yet you preach to everyone else to cut down when you don't.

ROFL. Where have I preached to cut green house gas emissions? I do support GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS of pollution and I do support our GOVERNMENT investing in this matter. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

quote:P.S The biggest cause of global warming is cattle (Spoken by the retards who support global warming) cattle have been around over thousands of years surely the earth should be some sort of burning hell right now?

It's just one retarded argument after another with you. First, cattle have not been around in the VAST NUMBERS that they are today for thousands of years. Second, the green house gas they they produce (methane) has actually stopped rising in atmospheric levels. Jesus you are an idiot.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-03-2007).]

[boozehound420]

Alot of scientists still think were headed into another mini ice age.

Through studying ice core samples we have seen that before the last ice age that the earth was in a process of warming up(after the ice age before that. And it was warming up really fast. Then it went back into another ice age really fast for 1500 years then warmed again to what we have today.

We dont even know why that happend, we just know it did. There was even a rapid change during the middle ages. Where majority of the ice melted. Lasted for 100 years.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 03-04-2007).]

[Defekt]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

People were killed thousands of years before guns were invented. Thus, guns have nothing to do with the killing that is going on today. Replace "people being killed" with "the earth warming" and "guns" with "greenhouse gases" and we have your exact argument, retard logic still intact.

So if we take away guns people are still going to die. EI if we take away green house gases the earth is still going to get warmer.

There I took your fucking retarded metaphor which can not be used because they function differently and turned it against you.

[Real.PUA]

quote:Originally posted by Defekt:

So if we take away guns people are still going to die. EI if we take away green house gases the earth is still going to get warmer.

There I took your fucking retarded metaphor which can not be used because they function differently and turned it against you.

No, you didn't. If we take guns away people will still die. If we stop producing green house gases humans will stop accelerating global warming with green houses gases. You proved my point.

[AsylumSeaker]

It would be ok if we were arguing over something subjective. Global warming is not subjective. The consequences of global warming isn't a difference of opinion, the consequence is death.

[Gith]

There is a few major flaws in the human-increased C02 global warming theory.

Satellite and Weather Balloon research has shown that the place in Earth's atmosphere which should show the most significant temperature change (the Troposphere - where the greenhouse gases are supposed to be trapping the sun's energy - about 10km up) is actually lower than the surface's temperature increase. Suggesting that the warming is surface based.

Most of the global temperature increase over the past 150 years was done before 1940. A time when human Carbon Dioxide emmissions were negligible. During the post war economic boom from 1940-1975 when C02 emmissions soared the Global temperature actually decreased, not beginning to rise again until about 1985.

The percentage of C02 in the atmosphere is something like 0.54% (to which humans contribute only a tiny fraction - volcanos alone emitting more C02 than all the factories in the world put together). It is actually a relatively unimportant greenhouse gas - water vapour being the most important and constituting 95% of greenhouse gases.

[StealthyRacoons]

quote:Originally posted by siegmeow:

I don't should know if I should post this at B&M but the people I want to reach with this message are here.

I really don't care what people believe in honestly. As far as I'm concerned believe what you like my care factor is 0. But the moment somebody says that they start pushing their views down my throat then it shits me and a lot of other people.

This is what is happening of the proponets of global warming they are pushing views down peoples throats and not allowing any oppisition. Like one totse member said "people who are against global warming are being treated lik holocaust deniers." I ask why the people who support global warming here why do you deny people myself and others with similar views a voice?

Look all I'm asking for here is a voice. I mean to be perfectly honest I'm sick of getting fogged off by these people, all I want and others like myself just want a chance to voice our views without getting shot down I think that is a just and fair ask.



of course global warming is real, the earth has been cooling and warming for millions of years.

[Real.PUA]

quote:Originally posted by Gith:

There is a few major flaws in the human-increased C02 global warming theory.

Satellite and Weather Balloon research has shown that the place in Earth's atmosphere which should show the most significant temperature change (the Troposphere - where the greenhouse gases are supposed to be trapping the sun's energy - about 10km up) is actually lower than the surface's temperature increase. Suggesting that the warming is surface based.

Most of the global temperature increase over the past 150 years was done before 1940. A time when human Carbon Dioxide emmissions were negligible. During the post war economic boom from 1940-1975 when C02 emmissions soared the Global temperature actually decreased, not beginning to rise again until about 1985.

The percentage of C02 in the atmosphere is something like 0.54% (to which humans contribute only a tiny fraction - volcanos alone emitting more C02 than all the factories in the world put together). It is actually a relatively unimportant greenhouse gas - water vapour being the most important and constituting 95% of greenhouse gases.

Your first point sounds like a misunderstanding...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Your second point doesnt mean anything as the correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature is is well established.

For the last one, according to the computer models, human emmisions of CO2 will/do have drastic effects on the climate. So the fact that CO2 is only a small fraction of the atmosphere is another irrelevant issue.

Please provide a reference that says volcanoes release more CO2 than humans, I have yet to see a reference for that commonly made claim.

Water vapor is also not a major issue because it's concentration in the air is not increasing...there's this thing called rain. And yes, water is included in all the computer models.

[One_way_mirror]

channel 4 made a documentary last night about how global warming is actually just being funded by the government in order to boost PR (and a bunch of other shit that can be disproven/rendered obselete).

I think a lot of people really haven't taken a logical overview of the science behind global 'warming' - even fewer know the history of human investigation into the phenomonae.

I myself didn't actually understand why people were against the idea of global warming until i realised that the government was selectively promoting research in order to get the results THEY WANTED, not the results that were accurate.

[This message has been edited by One_way_mirror (edited 03-09-2007).]

[Connor MacManus]

Damn. Everybody in here should read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Anyway - I'm not going to say anything about whether or not I think global warming is happening or whether it's human caused, because I don't want to get raped by ten people. I say:

1. Shame on all of you - almost nobody is being strictly logical; you're using emotional arguments and not providing any specific or cited facts.

2. The United States, along with most industrial modern countries, doesn't put out that much CO2 compared with third world industrial countries. Look at China! China makes electricity for all 1 billion people using coal burning power plants that have no type of scrubbers or filters in the smoke stacks. I don't know where one could get numbers, but I'm willing to bet China is frying the world a hell of a lot more than all of the modern industrial countries combined. I've actually been to China, and I can say firsthand that is super polluted compared with what I have seen of Europe and the United States.

[RAOVQ]

quote:Originally posted by Connor MacManus:

2. The United States, along with most industrial modern countries, doesn't put out that much CO2 compared with third world industrial countries. Look at China!

annual CO2 emmisions, top 5.

united states - 5,872,278 thousand tonnes

the entire EU - 3,682,756

china - 3,300,371

russia - 1,432,513

India - 1,220,926



"you're using emotional arguments and not providing any specific or cited facts."

[Real.PUA]

Not to mention that china and india represent over a billion people each.

[Connor MacManus]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

annual CO2 emmisions, top 5.

united states - 5,872,278 thousand tonnes

the entire EU - 3,682,756

china - 3,300,371

russia - 1,432,513

India - 1,220,926



"you're using emotional arguments and not providing any specific or cited facts."



Thank you very much for providing some facts, and refraining from throwing petty insults. But you're still not quite there - where did those numbers come from? You could have just made them up. Or they could be from 1970. Facts are only good if they are true and relevant.

[Real.PUA]

Just use google and look it up. It's not that hard.

[boozehound420]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

annual CO2 emmisions, top 5.

united states - 5,872,278 thousand tonnes

the entire EU - 3,682,756

china - 3,300,371

russia - 1,432,513

India - 1,220,926



"you're using emotional arguments and not providing any specific or cited facts."

source?, Ive read on many occasions that china consumes more oil then the US, and is almost completly relient on coal power plants. Fuck the air pollution from there power plants gets all the way over here to BC. Effecting our weather. Not co2, but just the silt and dust given off.

[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 03-14-2007).]

[Real.PUA]

Where did you read that china consumes more oil than the US, I'd like to see what sources take no effort to check their facts.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-14-2007).]

[Rocko]

I do not care, I do not care, dear god I do not care. Any shred of truth there might have been in the global warming theory has completely dissapeared beneath scheming politicians, grant-money-hungry "scientists", and general shitheads on both sides. I don't care if the EU sets up their entire country to run on their own rose-smelling shit, as long as they leave me and my automobiles alone.

[RAOVQ]

it's amazing how anti-science the US is. evolution is shouted down, biological sciences are portrayed as creating monsters, scientists are now money hungry villans with an adgenda. funding is cut on a whim when uninformed public opinion turns against the subject matter.

it's insanity. and it is all done to serve a political purpose. when the country is run by fundamentalist christians, is there any shock when it is announced science is the enemy?

lets try think about this in terms of logic and reasoning, not "money hungry scientists and propaganda" emotional pre-fabricated responses ay?

[more_cake]

I found this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) at Zok's Website: it's an interesting article that tries to link global Warming to an increase in Solar Energy by the sun.

I don't know how valid the arguments are, and I personally think that humans ARE behind it, but it's an interesting counter-point, at the least.

[eXo5]

look... assnut. when you post, you're getting a fair chance to VOICE YOUR FUCKING OPINION. the problem you seem to have is that all of us, have a care factor of 0.

and uhh... global warming is going to be a catalyst in the cancerous geological processes destined to rip the planet in half ANYWAY.

[raizel_234]

Once again this type of debate manages to make the hot topic list. To the OP, get your shit straight, the debate is over gloabl warming it's over the cause. To those who believe that the current warming trend is a product of human effect on the climate I say this: It just happens to be mankinds unfornate luck that a warming cycle happened to start about the time of the industrial revolution. I believe that mankind has in fact had an impact on the climate, but not as much as many of the left wing wack jobs would have you to believe. The question should be how much of the current warming trend is cause by mankinds impact.

[eXo5]

^^^

[Caoltan]

u all should've watched "the great global warming swindle" on channel4 there recently. harvard lecturers, MIT lecturers and even the co-founder of greenpeace was on it saying, with lots of evidence, that global warming has nothing to do with human activity, but rather because of the sun. And by the way, leaves humidifying release more CO2 than all our efforts together!

so does the ocean. check it out :"the great global warming swindle" . check youtube maybe or something

[Godhead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU watch is NOW. Then you can can choose a side.