Debate time: Global Warming

[Goat Whisperer]

I'm not saying that we are going to end THE world I am saying we are potentially ending OUR world as we know it. The planet will survive on it's own. Some amazing species like the seals, the polar bears, and of course the humans will most likely go extinct.

Then on the 2nd page you posted this which makes no sense. If the earth were to survive we would be the last group to go extinct.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say the humans would go extinct.I meant the world as we know it would end. AKA economies, politics, eco-systems would collapse, and our life styles would be severely reduced.

I don't have enough time to write up a response to the other point, but don't worry I have one.

 

[Alien Allen]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say the humans would go extinct.I meant the world as we know it would end. AKA economies, politics, eco-systems would collapse, and our life styles would be severely reduced.

see that is where things are stretched to extremes. If the earth survives then why would economies and politics not? makes no sense.

I don't have enough time to write up a response to the other point, but don't worry I have one.

I am sure you do :24:

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I am sure you do :24:

Sorry, didn't have the time to find my links before i left, had to go to my sisters house

I'm not really sure where you people get this stuff, Here is a graph of temperatures over the past two thousand years. Note that the current decade is considerably warmer than anything previous to WWII. Here are three more graphs which break the temperatures down according to northern and southern hemispheres as well as global averages. Again, the current decade is obviously the warmest one.

How do we know that it is human activity and not natural cycles causing the change? The Hadley Met Center has an easy-to-understand fact book with all the supporting graphs here.

 

[Alien Allen]

nothing other than probablys there

all speculation

continue on though

 

[ConTRo13R]

Cant we just leave the earth to do what it has done naturally, like all the millions of years before our interference.

We as humans are not to blame for so called global warming or the 'destruction' of the planet, the earth will naturally do what it does regardless of whether we want it to or not.

Rsing C02 levels pffft maybe but the earth will counter these if they are dangerous or affecting it! Same as we destroying the ozone layer! oh what was that a few years back? the ozone layer has repaired itself! oh my why would it do that... its called NATURE! leave it be

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

none of us are scientists and qualified to prove you wrong. It would be a silly game of back and forth to attempt to do that when your education does not make you an expert anyway.

I did go back and it appears you never addressed the chart on the first page about the warmest decade in post 7 by Intruder where asked
Then on the 2nd page you posted this which makes no sense. If the earth were to survive we would be the last group to go extinct.

You sure about that?:cool

 

[Alien Allen]

what you talking about Willis

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Cant we just leave the earth to do what it has done naturally, like all the millions of years before our interference.

We as humans are not to blame for so called global warming or the 'destruction' of the planet, the earth will naturally do what it does regardless of whether we want it to or not.

Rsing C02 levels pffft maybe but the earth will counter these if they are dangerous or affecting it! Same as we destroying the ozone layer! oh what was that a few years back? the ozone layer has repaired itself! oh my why would it do that... its called NATURE! leave it be

We put a hole in the Ozone layer, then we stopped releasing the gases that were putting holes in the ozone layer, and then the holes went away.

The earth isn't just going to pull out a magical wand and fix itself. Yes, it will survive, but our lifestyles will be severely diminished. And several eco-systems will be destroyed, as well as several animal species will go extinct.

This is man made, not natural. Something we can stop. And anyways who said 'nature' was always good anyways? Normally when it is a natural change, it would be something we could adapt too, but since it is going at a much faster rate then ever before, it is going to be much more sudden and almost impossible for any species including ourselves, to adapt.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

nothing other than probablys there

all speculation

continue on though

What are you talking about? I don't believe the word 'probably' was once in that post.

Look, you bring up points, I debunk them, then you say I am wrong because I am not a scientist. Then I tell you most of the scientists agree with me, then you tell me I am lying...


Your just being a denialist.

 

[Alien Allen]

What are you talking about? I don't believe the word 'probably' was once in that post.

Look, you bring up points, I debunk them, then you say I am wrong because I am not a scientist. Then I tell you most of the scientists agree with me, then you tell me I am lying...


Your just being a denialist.

you are seeing things that are not there.

I never said YOU stated probably. I said it was full of probablys

And where did I call you a liar

As to most of the scientists agreeing with you that is not correct. Most of the scientists that YOU follow are people that are like minded. There are tons others that disagree.

My point is the earth has had temperature variations since its beginning. You do remember the ice age.

It is not a question of whether the earthing is experiencing a warming trend. Most will agree that is happening. The question is whether we are causing it. Thus far I have seen nothing conclusive.

Even if there was something conclusive I would not take draconian measures like Gore wants while China and other countries are causing far more harm to the environment. Our country is full of naysayer who claim the waters are polluted and blah blah blah when we have made tremendous improvements.

The Global Warming people , maybe not you, but in general preach doom and gloom and I just aint buying it. Not yet.

 

[Peter Parka]

Our country is full of naysayer who claim the waters are polluted and blah blah blah when we have made tremendous improvements.

This is true. The river Thames (the river which flows through London) was virtually dead 50 years ago and now a lot of wildlife has returned to it including Otters which require very unpoluted water, a huge improvement seeing it runs through one of the largest and overcrowded cities in Europe. You also dont get smog over London like you did 50 years ago either. There are obvious examples of where we are killing the planet but there are also huge improvements we have made to restore it. It isn't all doom and gloom and has already been said, it's debateable how much damage we are doing. Although far from perfect I think in general we are moving in the right direction. To make improvements we need to present people with viable alternatives. Living in a teepee, shitting in a hole in the ground and living like a hippie simply is doomed from the start because most people do not want to live like that.

 

[Alien Allen]

Lake Erie 30 years ago was almost a dead lake

Now it has thriving fish populations.

We can always improve and must be good stewards and that does not have to include the knee jerk extremism as proposed by Gore.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I never said YOU stated probably. I said it was full of probablys

And where did I call you a liar

There weren't. They were graphs no prbablies about it. You said that it was warmer before WWI and then I showed you several graphs that proved you completely wrong, and you never even had proof in the first place.

You call me a liar all the time, you tell me that I am using false science when I am using science from 15 different unbiased sources.

As to most of the scientists agreeing with you that is not correct. Most of the scientists that YOU follow are people that are like minded. There are tons others that disagree.

Okay, well most climatologists agree with me, as well as the credible scientific groups: NAS, AAAS, NASA, NOAA, GISS, RS, EPA, and CMOS.

My point is the earth has had temperature variations since its beginning. You do remember the ice age.

And we are responsible for this warming trend. It is out of the ordinary, it is at a faster rate then ever before, something that naturally would take hundreds or even thousands of years, and it is going to be at a much larger magnitude then ever before as well. Not only that, but if you look at any of those graphs, the assumption would be we should be cooling right now, not warming.

Thus far I have seen nothing conclusive.

Don't you think there is enough of a risk of it being real to do something about it? Isn't it smarter to say 'We should take action against global warming and not risk the consequences of not taking action' instead of 'We shouldn't take action against global warming because we don't know for sure, so we should just risk it'

The first one seems far more logical. Especially when I can debunk everything you say and all you can say in response is 'Your wrong, because your not a scientist'

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

There weren't. They were graphs no prbablies about it. You said that it was warmer before WWI and then I showed you several graphs that proved you completely wrong, and you never even had proof in the first place.

You call me a liar all the time, you tell me that I am using false science when I am using science from 15 different unbiased sources.



Okay, well most climatologists agree with me, as well as the credible scientific groups: NAS, AAAS, NASA, NOAA, GISS, RS, EPA, and CMOS.

Actually you agree with them, you have no credibility in the field of science or climatology. Interstingly enough, I can run off, plaguerize someones charts/graphs and articles on climate change and warming that totally contradicts what you use to support it, and the science makes just as much sense if you understand science...Which I do



And we are responsible for this warming trend. It is out of the ordinary, it is at a faster rate then ever before, something that naturally would take hundreds or even thousands of years, and it is going to be at a much larger magnitude then ever before as well. Not only that, but if you look at any of those graphs, the assumption would be we should be cooling right now, not warming.

If you truly understood the relationship that takes places with climate/earths atmosphere and the gulf streams you would understand that these two can exist at the same time, and be caused by the same thing


Don't you think there is enough of a risk of it being real to do something about it? Isn't it smarter to say 'We should take action against global warming and not risk the consequences of not taking action' instead of 'We shouldn't take action against global warming because we don't know for sure, so we should just risk it'

I think we can all help, but I also think that our lifestyles lend themselves to eventual destruction....We as a culture are built on the concept of consumerism. On a side not, you're in FFA, did they teach you that the average bovine emits in excess of 500 cubic feet of methane gas a day? Talk about environmentally un-freindly animals.

The first one seems far more logical. Especially when I can debunk everything you say and all you can say in response is 'Your wrong, because your not a scientist'

Basically there's rights and wrongs on both sides of the argument, that's what needs to be sorted out. But because of fanatacism and immense egos it won't happen soon.

 

[wednesday]

whats a eogs???is it something scientific?....im a dunce?..

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

whats a eogs???is it something scientific?....im a dunce?..

Pffffttttt:24:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

*Fixed* fricken spelling nazis :24:

 

[wednesday]

sowwy coudlnt resist...

 

[Goat Whisperer]

You don't prove anything You just said stuff with no evidence

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You don't prove anything You just said stuff with no evidence

I'm not trying to prove anything. It was called making a point


There's a difference