|
Global Warming Debate
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| I believe man has a part to play. Anytime civilization releases the stored carbon of millions upon millions of years of dead organisms...that has to have some effect on global warming. Whether the doomsday scenario is accurate, I think its overly hyped. But also, the temperature uptrend from the 1800's when we first started keeping whether data began when the earth had bottomed out on a cooling trend. So we've seen nothing but uptrend since the 1800's. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Anytime civilization releases the stored carbon of millions upon millions of years of dead organisms...that has to have some effect on global warming. |
i think volcanos should be outlawed. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| My vote goes to limiting cow farts |
|
|
| Krypton |
| You guys deny the fact man has an influence on the environment. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
I watched a documentary on the discovery channel a few weeks ago that said that the sun is actually burning hotter each year and has done progressively so for the past few decades. In the face of such factors beyond our control i dont think that man contributes all that much to global worming. I'm not saying we are not, even if the sun burns hotter, the temperature of earth would very likely be lower if not for the green house effect, but blaming the rise in temperatures solely on man is just wrong. Did we cause global warming? No. Are we speeding it up. Most definitely.
Also earth has gone trough the warming and cooling cycles probably a million times by now and will in all likelihood continue to do it for the next 4 to 5 billion years. Even if we eliminate all green house gas emmisions, the temperature could still continue to rise for another 10.000 years. It's a cycle and we are stuck with it (or in it?), the most we can do is try to adapt and not make it worst.
Thats my unscientific take on it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.
We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.
http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You guys deny the fact man has an influence on the environment. |
thats pretty vague. man will always have an influence on the environment.
i think you meant to ask, do i buy completely into anthropogenic global warming. my answer would be no. |
|
|
| Krypton |
PKC, global warming deniars are few and far between. The issue is whether it is caused by man or by natural causes.
I tend to believe it is mostly natural, BUT, man has an influence which could certainly tip the scale further..How can we release millions of years worth of carbon in less than 100 years and not have any measurable effect on atmospheric gas balances? To say we don't have any effect whatsoever is ludicrous.
So Q, how do you explain away the above paragraph? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
So Q, how do you explain away the above paragraph? |
well, carbon? what kind of carbon are you talking about?
i think you mean CO2. i don't completely buy into it, but it's something i don't completely understand either. i know man and his machines release CO2 artificially so to speak, but CO2 and other greenhouse gases come from many many other sources naturally in much more abundance. like, by magnitudes i think.
i also believe that big ball of fire in the sky during daylight hours has something to do with it as well. it's HUGE!
i think the question should be how far are we, self determining people and governments, willing to trust a select few others with the re-programing of all mankind?
i believe as humans we've got a little more wiggle room, anthropogenically, than those select few are willing to lead us on with. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.
We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.
http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html |
You've taken the whole conspiracy thing too far, my friend. 9/11 has nothing to do with global warming, seriously. People who believe in global warming are generally NOT lunatics or 9/11 conspiracy supporters. This is not about comparing if the government is involved in global warming, but if its mainly human or nature driven - thats the debate. Global warming (or climate change, as I like to put it), has many credible points - the main one being the significant melting of ice in the polar regions. And thats no conspiracy, its a fact. But despite that, I still question this whole "global warming" thing myself, and though humans do play a factor, it is mainly driven by non-human factors, such as the sun. Thats my belief. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You guys deny the fact man has an influence on the environment. |
I think Agent Smith stated it the best ;)
| quote: | | Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. |
but besides that, I believe it is a combination of several factors not just one.. |
|
|
|
|
