I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"

We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?

Originally posted by n2sooners

I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"

 

We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?

Perfect temperature for what? It's around 160 F (71 C) for Thermus aquaticus, Room temperature if you are a human, and around 30 F (-1 C) for Melosira arclica.

Stability in temperature flux and trends as temperature varyation by geograhical location is more important for determining the prognosis for a given ecosystem.  Luckily as we improve our understanding and technology, we can better evaluate these parameters.

I know what you mean about these silly scientists that can't get their story straight though.  I mean first the earth was flat, now the earth is ROUND.. next thing some bozo will be telling us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe. They really should pick one story and stick with it.

Originally posted by Hazmal

Originally posted by Draenor

The idea that it's okay to lie about global warming because it will help us clean up our environment anyway is completely stupid.  Do you people not realize the affects that global warming initiatives have on the global economy?  To put in inefficient and expensive means of power production is an absolute killer to an already fragile economic climate.

 

Don't use the current economic slump as a fall guy.  Envoronmental cleanup initiatives have been pushed through good times and bad.

I'm not blaming global warming alarmists on the current economic slump...I'm saying that now is an ESPECIALLY bad time to be forcing businesses to spend extra money on crap that they don't need to be more productive...yet that's exactly what we are doing with the government's over regulation of businesses.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by n2sooners

I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"

 

We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?

 

Perfect temperature for what? It's around 160 F (71 C) for Thermus aquaticus, Room temperature if you are a human, and around 30 F (-1 C) for Melosira arclica.

Stability in temperature flux and trends as temperature varyation by geograhical location is more important for determining the prognosis for a given ecosystem.  Luckily as we improve our understanding and technology, we can better evaluate these parameters.

I know what you mean about these silly scientists that can't get their story straight though.  I mean first the earth was flat, now the earth is ROUND.. next thing some bozo will be telling us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe. They really should pick one story and stick with it.

 

Actually what those silly scientists should do is quit claiming they know everything there is to know and declaring the debate closed because every time they do they it comes back to bite them in the butt.

You say it costs money and yet really it doesn't cause the goverments are charging tax for it and all these new companies are making new energy efficient stuff thats selling like mad now. It's a very large industry that the goverment wants to force it to grow like for example how much more on taxes you have to pay for a 4x4 now since this global warming man made crap.

I mean like that program said we produce a tiny tiny percentage of CO2 which in turn is only a tiny tiny percentage of the green house gases. If it was that then the atmosphere would be getting hotter but it's not, it's the surface of the earth. Also the earth has been alot hotter than it is today and we managed to live on this planet. I mean throughout history the climate has changed and with that Ice Age that will come sooner or later then who really cares anyways, we want it to be abit hotter. The Earth changes all the time and just cause people love something to bitch about then this has become the major topic and it's pointless. The Polar Bears are dying out because of Global Warming and yet they were around when it was much hotter than this. Like has anyone thought maybe our over fishing of the seas might have an effect on this and all the other shit we're doing. Maybe the Sun has gotten abit hotter which is in turn making more water evaporate and also causes the surface temp to get hotter.

There are more important things to focus on like recycling than going on something where theres no proof.

Like Green Peace they don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about, they only back anything that is pro green. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to wanna clean up the planet but just because they say something and throw fake scientists at something, doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by hadub

Originally posted by IIRL

Originally posted by lvlanoob

The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell.

What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.

 

You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?

Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.

 

Yea I'm aware that plants breath carbon dioxide. I'm perfectly lucid in the fact that I do not. In my discussion I was talking about CO2 and other pollutants causing health problems with people. Making trees happy had nothing to do with the conversation.

Originally posted by n2sooners

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by n2sooners

I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"

 

We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?

 

Perfect temperature for what? It's around 160 F (71 C) for Thermus aquaticus, Room temperature if you are a human, and around 30 F (-1 C) for Melosira arclica.

Stability in temperature flux and trends as temperature varyation by geograhical location is more important for determining the prognosis for a given ecosystem.  Luckily as we improve our understanding and technology, we can better evaluate these parameters.

I know what you mean about these silly scientists that can't get their story straight though.  I mean first the earth was flat, now the earth is ROUND.. next thing some bozo will be telling us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe. They really should pick one story and stick with it.

 

 

Actually what those silly scientists should do is quit claiming they know everything there is to know and declaring the debate closed because every time they do they it comes back to bite them in the butt.

Never met a scientist that claimed to know everything- that's what religion is for : )
 

Scientists take the best information available and use it to aggressively challenge current theories.  Even the notion of a scientist calling a debate "closed" is absurd.  Scientific method actually requires that they constantly challenge their own theories.

The problem is that human activity is having a huge impact on our planet, and science is racing to understand the nature of this impact before we do irreparable harm to everything we count on for survival.  As technology improves and research continues, the predominant theory evolves.

You seem to be suggesting that the best course of action would be to say "Aw heck, everything will probably be fine."  Sticking our heads in the sand would be equally effective.

Originally posted by lvlanoob

Originally posted by hadub

Originally posted by IIRL

Originally posted by lvlanoob

The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell.

What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.

 

You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?

Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.

 

Yea I'm aware that plants breath carbon dioxide. I'm perfectly lucid in the fact that I do not. In my discussion I was talking about CO2 and other pollutants causing health problems with people. Making trees happy had nothing to do with the conversation.

You also exhale CO2.  Bet you didn't know you were polluting the environment every time you breath out, did you?  When I see you stop breathing, I'll take your concerns about CO2 emissions seriously.

Originally posted by hadub

Originally posted by lvlanoob

Originally posted by hadub

Originally posted by IIRL

Originally posted by lvlanoob

The solar flare theory and the man made CO2 theory are just that...both are theories. I wouldn't be surprised if our current warmng trend is a combination of both. But as far as claiming this to be a long term warming trend, only time will tell.

What really gets to me is when discussing the man made CO2 both scientists AND critics seem to be missing the truth that's slapping them in the face. CO2 is a polutant. Humans get health complications such as asthma buy breathing that and other pollutants in. Regardless of wether it causes global warming or not it still causes harm, so get rid of the pollution, and stop making excuses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

What he said, most Americans take their political sides view on the matter rather than looking at it objectively, polution is bad no matter what.

 

You guys know that plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, right?

Calling Carbon Dioxide pollution reminds me of that joke that went around about banning water.

 

Yea I'm aware that plants breath carbon dioxide. I'm perfectly lucid in the fact that I do not. In my discussion I was talking about CO2 and other pollutants causing health problems with people. Making trees happy had nothing to do with the conversation.

 

You also exhale CO2.  Bet you didn't know you were polluting the environment every time you breath out, did you?  When I see you stop breathing, I'll take your concerns about CO2 emissions seriously.

 

 

OK, let me try to explain this in simple terms so  you can understand. My breathing, your breathing, or a  trees' breathing, has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. The point of this thread has to do with whether or not man made pollutants -INCLUDING CO2 - contribute to global warming. The point I was making was that regardless of whether MAN MADE CO2 contributed to global warming, it is STILL  unhealthy for us to breath.

I was  talking about MAN MADE POLLUTANTS. I was NOT talking about how nature recycles between animals and plants,  oxygen and carbon dioxide, which is what you are foolishly trying to insinuate. Please learn how to read. 

Let me explain  - in simple words so you understand - what I am talking about...The city of  L.A. has too much CO2 and OTHER MAN MADE pollutants because of industrial and vehicular emissons. This creates MAN MADE SMOG. This smog is unhealthy for people. This is a FACT! In the country of China, the city of  Beijing has too much CO2 and OTHER MAN MADE POLLUTANTS that create SMOG. These pollutants are unhealthy for its citizens. That is why they severely restricted driving and COMPLETELY STOPPED  industrial growth before the Olympics last year. This allowed  the athletes to actually BREATHE and not become unhealthy . This is also a FACT. 

 The point I am trying to make is that these MAN MADE pollutants, INCLUDING CO2, are UNHEALTHY for us. I was specifically talking about how these  MAN MADE pollutants are unhealthy to breath. I made it clear that whether they contribute to global warming or not - we should do what we can to get rid of them.

For you to suggest that I should stop breathing to slow down CO2 emmisions is completely juvenile and assinine. You obviously have no intelligent thoughts to contribute to this conversation. All you are capable of doing is attacking me as a person. You are completely incompetant to actually discuss the subject at hand.  How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when the only thing you can do is attack a persons right to breath? Your pathetic.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
Once again we see the mindset we are dealing with. Truth doesn't matter, only ideology does. As long as people do what you want them to, it doesn't matter if you have to lie to get them to do it.
The end justifies the means.
Sorry, I disagree.

---

To be honest I'm not entirely sure if Global Warming is fake or not. In this matter though people people have showed that they really are lazy fucks that will do their best to delay all kind of changes to worst as long as possible. If it now recently have been proved that Global Warming isn't real then sure, but it seems to be that scientists truly believed it was real some years ago and that means that they didn't lie, they told what they believed was the truth. The problem is that if this is proved to not be true then people will think "fuck yes, now I can keep on living the way I do, who gives a fuck about future generations?" instead of realizing that ONE problem out of a million weren't real.

I do hate it when I have to say that I think the ends justifies the means, but in this case it's necessary. If we do not start doing something and soon we will make future generations suffer and the blood will be entirely on our hands.

For all that matters I watched 10 minutes of the movie and must say that's very lovely propaganda. Present people as authorities then make them repeat the same thing over and over again to brainwash you.

Originally posted by Godliest

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
Once again we see the mindset we are dealing with. Truth doesn't matter, only ideology does. As long as people do what you want them to, it doesn't matter if you have to lie to get them to do it.
The end justifies the means.
Sorry, I disagree.

---

 

To be honest I'm not entirely sure if Global Warming is fake or not. In this matter though people people have showed that they really are lazy fucks that will do their best to delay all kind of changes to worst as long as possible. If it now recently have been proved that Global Warming isn't real then sure, but it seems to be that scientists truly believed it was real some years ago and that means that they didn't lie, they told what they believed was the truth. The problem is that if this is proved to not be true then people will think "fuck yes, now I can keep on living the way I do, who gives a fuck about future generations?" instead of realizing that ONE problem out of a million weren't real.

I do hate it when I have to say that I think the ends justifies the means, but in this case it's necessary. If we do not start doing something and soon we will make future generations suffer and the blood will be entirely on our hands.

For all that matters I watched 10 minutes of the movie and must say that's very lovely propaganda. Present people as authorities then make them repeat the same thing over and over again to brainwash you.

The problem is the "something" that people want to do is worse than doing nothing. It will impoverish nations and ruin just as many lives, if not more for just as many generations, if not more.

Also, if people suck as you say, then they can not be trusted with the government power YOU want to give them -- especially if you have to knowingly LIE to trick people into giving them that power.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Godliest

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
Once again we see the mindset we are dealing with. Truth doesn't matter, only ideology does. As long as people do what you want them to, it doesn't matter if you have to lie to get them to do it.
The end justifies the means.
Sorry, I disagree.

---

 

To be honest I'm not entirely sure if Global Warming is fake or not. In this matter though people people have showed that they really are lazy fucks that will do their best to delay all kind of changes to worst as long as possible. If it now recently have been proved that Global Warming isn't real then sure, but it seems to be that scientists truly believed it was real some years ago and that means that they didn't lie, they told what they believed was the truth. The problem is that if this is proved to not be true then people will think "fuck yes, now I can keep on living the way I do, who gives a fuck about future generations?" instead of realizing that ONE problem out of a million weren't real.

I do hate it when I have to say that I think the ends justifies the means, but in this case it's necessary. If we do not start doing something and soon we will make future generations suffer and the blood will be entirely on our hands.

For all that matters I watched 10 minutes of the movie and must say that's very lovely propaganda. Present people as authorities then make them repeat the same thing over and over again to brainwash you.

The problem is the "something" that people want to do is worse than doing nothing. It will impoverish nations and ruin just as many lives, if not more for just as many generations, if not more.

Also, if people suck as you say, then they can not be trusted with the government power YOU want to give them -- especially if you have to knowingly LIE to trick people into giving them that power.

No, the "something" people want to do is not worse if you want to look at worse case.

There is 4 situations you can look at

If you want to argue between acting and not actings. By acting your putting up a global recession but there is no chance the vast majority of the world will die.
If you Don't act you're either going to come out unskathed... or dead.

So the question would be, is gambling with the lives of Billions really worth it to avoid a recession due to "going green?"

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Godliest

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage
Once again we see the mindset we are dealing with. Truth doesn't matter, only ideology does. As long as people do what you want them to, it doesn't matter if you have to lie to get them to do it.
The end justifies the means.
Sorry, I disagree.

---

 

To be honest I'm not entirely sure if Global Warming is fake or not. In this matter though people people have showed that they really are lazy fucks that will do their best to delay all kind of changes to worst as long as possible. If it now recently have been proved that Global Warming isn't real then sure, but it seems to be that scientists truly believed it was real some years ago and that means that they didn't lie, they told what they believed was the truth. The problem is that if this is proved to not be true then people will think "fuck yes, now I can keep on living the way I do, who gives a fuck about future generations?" instead of realizing that ONE problem out of a million weren't real.

I do hate it when I have to say that I think the ends justifies the means, but in this case it's necessary. If we do not start doing something and soon we will make future generations suffer and the blood will be entirely on our hands.

For all that matters I watched 10 minutes of the movie and must say that's very lovely propaganda. Present people as authorities then make them repeat the same thing over and over again to brainwash you.

The problem is the "something" that people want to do is worse than doing nothing. It will impoverish nations and ruin just as many lives, if not more for just as many generations, if not more.

Also, if people suck as you say, then they can not be trusted with the government power YOU want to give them -- especially if you have to knowingly LIE to trick people into giving them that power.

No, the "something" people want to do is not worse if you want to look at worse case.

There is 4 situations you can look at

 

	Warming is real	Warming isn't real
We act	We save the world, minor economic recession but everyone is happy to be alive.	Global economic recession. People will probably starve from this at the worst case, but still not a catastrophic crisis.
We don't act	The vast majority of the world dies. Economies are destroyed and humanity now struggles for survival.	No recession, world goes on as normal.

 

If you want to argue between acting and not actings. By acting your putting up a global recession but there is no chance the vast majority of the world will die.
If you Don't act you're either going to come out unskathed... or dead.

So the question would be, is gambling with the lives of Billions really worth it to avoid a recession due to "going green?"

The problem is, we were in the muddle of a discussion where we were assuming it was a lie, and Sabian and Godliest were saying it was okay to lie for this political end.

The day you can prove man-made global warming is a real issue -- and not just another "I wanna rule the world" scheme is the day I change my mind on that issue.

It is not gambling  when some end-times believer makes up something, a bunch of people believe it, and then take over governments based on that belief. To be against such a person taking over  one's government risks nothing -- it is the only rational course of action when faced with such demagoguery

Basically I see Christians making the EXACT same argument when they use the same exact appeal to fear in order to "get people saved."

Such behavior is reprehensible no matter who does it.

let us see what we have seen in this thread: acceptance of lies to accomplish ends, various ad hominem attacks,  appeal to fear...all from those who believe we have to "do something" about global warming (excuse me, climate change -- since it's not warming anymore somehow by "doing nothing" we made the world cool the past several years so they had to change the name).

How many more irrational arguments can we make here?

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Just because man plays a measurable part doesn't mean man plays a significant part. Science, and logic, show, thus far that he doesn't.

That depends on if you believe only the "big parts" are significant parts; which are in debate anyway.

While you center your logic around what you believe is the "the biggest part" I'm guessing, since you completely discount the "measurable part" man contributes to greenhouse gases and warming trends (backed by science and logic; landfills and emissions aren't harmless), not everyone divides what they believe is "significant" based on what they believe measures most and only that.

Again, there's the convenience of blaming everything on the sun, and then there's knowing what we ourselves can do and stop doing.

Wow, really?

I'm glad I never believed in it to begin with, I mean OH NOES THE THING THAT HUMANS (a natural creation of earth!) BREATH OUT IS KILLING THE WORLD.. (...anyways) So I don't have to admit anything. <3

From Science:

"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]."

"The National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]."
 

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (from the Union of Concerned Scientists):

1) Global Climate Coalition

Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)

2) The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

3) Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.

 ***THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE. Show me your evidence! I welcome any supporting evidence in this thread for the position that anthropogenic gtreenhouse emissions are NOT affecting climate change.

Edit:1)  fixed info that was pasted in wrong spot. 2) MAN this post editor stinks lol.

Originally posted by Fishermage

The problem is, we were in the muddle of a discussion where we were assuming it was a lie, and Sabian and Godliest were saying it was okay to lie for this political end.

The day you can prove man-made global warming is a real issue -- and not just another "I wanna rule the world" scheme is the day I change my mind on that issue.

It is not gambling  when some end-times believer makes up something, a bunch of people believe it, and then take over governments based on that belief. To be against such a person taking over  one's government risks nothing -- it is the only rational course of action when faced with such demagoguery

Basically I see Christians making the EXACT same argument when they use the same exact appeal to fear in order to "get people saved."

Such behavior is reprehensible no matter who does it.

let us see what we have seen in this thread: acceptance of lies to accomplish ends, various ad hominem attacks,  appeal to fear...all from those who believe we have to "do something" about global warming (excuse me, climate change -- since it's not warming anymore somehow by "doing nothing" we made the world cool the past several years so they had to change the name).

How many more irrational arguments can we make here?

They didn't make it up, when the idea of global warming started it was because they noticed correlations, they had theories. This is how everything in science starts. People did more research and found more support. People jumped on it cause it was scary, it was environmental and we needed something like this for people to work towards.
How it was picked up and later dealt with is a different story. There are a lot of companies with HUGE money invested in both sides, which makes it really hard to weed through the garbage. But in the same regard legitimate research and papers will get cast aside from the over-zealous process of ignoring anybody who has a vested interest in the debate.
Your taking this whole issue and sensationalizing it so far beyond actual practicality. Global warming was never an attempt to control the masses. Its warped into a huge polar debate where both sides are so vehemently arguing one side nothing gets accomplished and people with any view are forced to get defensive.

American sensationalist media is getting far too ingrained into the way the western world thinks. Not to rag on Americans but you guys seem to turn every issue in a Starwars esq situation when in reality is a toss up issue thats investigating and finding out new things constantly. Abortion, religion, politics, global warming, Russia, Korea, Pirate ships, gun control...

My argument is simply if we have reason to beleive it could destroy the world, it makes no sense to risk near extinction to prevent a recession. Simple as that. Don't take it out of its scope.

Also regarding the solar cycle influence on climate change (from Science Daily):

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Non-Human Influences on Climate Change

Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

"Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years."
 

Well people??

I'm waiting! Can't anyone find a SINGLE legitimate source to discredit the current anthropogenic global warming theory??

Or were you all just parroting "conservative" buzzwords and phrases that you never really researched yourselves?

Seriously, I welcome a debate but the best I've seen so far here is "I exhale CO2 so global warming must not be true."

Come on people, show me some evidence that you think for yourselves!

Here is a very generalized set of facts:

So called 'Greenhouse Emissons' trap radiant heat, not allowing it to be reflect back out.

Increased/Decreased magnetic variances in the Sun cause more/less Sun Spots, which increase/decreases energy received by Earth

Volcanic ash and debris causes decreases in near time Global temperatures, and gases released are 'Greenhouse Emissions'

Testing over the last 2 million years (Ice Boring, Tree testing) signifies that the earth goes through a cycle of cooling and warming phases, we currently are in a 'warm' phase

All these things are in not in dispute.

These next are the things that are recognized facts, but the inference from them is debated

The current warming trend is faster than all but 2 times in history (Ice Boring, Tree Testing). The 2 variances are from 2 massives sesmic activities (though followed 5-10 years after)

There is more 'Greenhouse Gases' in the atmosphere than have been in the last several million years (hard to varify past that)

Following the last several volcanic eruptions, avg temperatures have increased less than before

The Southern Pole's Ozone Hole has been decreasing in size, and with it, the interior of Antartic has been decreasing in temperature. 

Increased Sea Storm activitiy

Increased Sea Termperature

When it comes down to it, people have already stated, yes there is global warming.  The question has since shifted to 'is it man made'.  If you look at the facts, it is questionable, but really, can you say dumping gases which have been tested to retain radiant heat into the atmosphere has no affect?  Removing vast amounts of forests and brakish water which remove those gases helps?  Its common sense, is it the cause, maybe not, but IT IS SURE AS EXPLICTIVE NOT HELPING.  That along with, hey, these gases are unhealthy for humans to breath should indicated maybe we should think about it, plus we don't have unlimited resources with the way we treat them.  Thus we come to the problem the Greenies have, they are going about it wrong.  They need to say, hey, maybe we are wrong, but we should do it anyways as it is good for our health, good for our childern, and will be good for the futre (economy and otherwise) to do this.  Hurt alittle now to avoid alot of hurt tomorrow and have much better prosperity.

Wow. I'll accept silence as an admission of defeat. To be honest I expected at least some attempt to defend the original premise of this thread.

Disappointing.

Just to be clear, you have let a leftist, filthy, tree-hugging hippy liberal win this debate.

The consensus among all legitimate scientists worldwide is that anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions ARE contributing to global warming and that this represents a serious problem for all of us.

Big industry and big petroleum have spent milliions of dollars just to confuse the public and undermine the good data we have to this effect.

I'm glad to see you are no longer fooled by this tactic, congratulations!

Originally posted by Munki

Originally posted by Fishermage

The problem is, we were in the muddle of a discussion where we were assuming it was a lie, and Sabian and Godliest were saying it was okay to lie for this political end.

The day you can prove man-made global warming is a real issue -- and not just another "I wanna rule the world" scheme is the day I change my mind on that issue.

It is not gambling  when some end-times believer makes up something, a bunch of people believe it, and then take over governments based on that belief. To be against such a person taking over  one's government risks nothing -- it is the only rational course of action when faced with such demagoguery

Basically I see Christians making the EXACT same argument when they use the same exact appeal to fear in order to "get people saved."

Such behavior is reprehensible no matter who does it.

let us see what we have seen in this thread: acceptance of lies to accomplish ends, various ad hominem attacks,  appeal to fear...all from those who believe we have to "do something" about global warming (excuse me, climate change -- since it's not warming anymore somehow by "doing nothing" we made the world cool the past several years so they had to change the name).

How many more irrational arguments can we make here?

They didn't make it up, when the idea of global warming started it was because they noticed correlations, they had theories. This is how everything in science starts. People did more research and found more support. People jumped on it cause it was scary, it was environmental and we needed something like this for people to work towards.
How it was picked up and later dealt with is a different story. There are a lot of companies with HUGE money invested in both sides, which makes it really hard to weed through the garbage. But in the same regard legitimate research and papers will get cast aside from the over-zealous process of ignoring anybody who has a vested interest in the debate.
Your taking this whole issue and sensationalizing it so far beyond actual practicality. Global warming was never an attempt to control the masses. Its warped into a huge polar debate where both sides are so vehemently arguing one side nothing gets accomplished and people with any view are forced to get defensive.

American sensationalist media is getting far too ingrained into the way the western world thinks. Not to rag on Americans but you guys seem to turn every issue in a Starwars esq situation when in reality is a toss up issue thats investigating and finding out new things constantly. Abortion, religion, politics, global warming, Russia, Korea, Pirate ships, gun control...

My argument is simply if we have reason to beleive it could destroy the world, it makes no sense to risk near extinction to prevent a recession. Simple as that. Don't take it out of its scope.

Sorry the evidence is that it was an agenda by political scientists.

I am sensationalizing nothing. The people who back the man made global warming agenda are advovating the destruction of freedom to do so. They are backed with much more money from much deeper pockets. Much more money is going into pushing the myth of man made global warming than the side that doesn't believe in it. The difference is milions vs billions.

The pro-manmade global warming side has far dirtier hands than the side that is not convinced.

This is not merely about a recession. This is about the end of freedom for humanity. That is their goal and they are making it more and more obvious every day.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Also regarding the solar cycle influence on climate change (from Science Daily):

"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Non-Human Influences on Climate Change

Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

"Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years."
 

Why have all their predictions been wrong, and why have we had global cooling for the past several years? Why did they have to change the name to climate change?

Originally posted by Enkindu

Well people??

I'm waiting! Can't anyone find a SINGLE legitimate source to discredit the current anthropogenic global warming theory??

Or were you all just parroting "conservative" buzzwords and phrases that you never really researched yourselves?

Seriously, I welcome a debate but the best I've seen so far here is "I exhale CO2 so global warming must not be true."

Come on people, show me some evidence that you think for yourselves!

Appeals to authority are nonsense. A real scientist would know this. YOU are making assertions here. WE are being skeptical. Prove your case without appealing to authorities, especially authorities who do not get more money from the government IF they scare people into believing in man-made global warming.