Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What do you guys think of Global Warming?

Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 8:51:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've been thinking about this issue again and again and I'm still quite unsure.

I just want to know your opinions either why or why not Global Warming has a fatal effect on the planet
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:11:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 8:51:32 PM, Yarely wrote:
I've been thinking about this issue again and again and I'm still quite unsure.

I just want to know your opinions either why or why not Global Warming has a fatal effect on the planet

Well, it all depends on the magnitude of effect that warming has. That's the really contentious bit. Even though I believe global warming is driven by humans, most popular estimates, such as those by Al Gore, extremely exaggerate the speed of the process.

There is also the possibility that natural processes may over time start to counter the effects of global warming. Right now we aren't positive.

Remember, this is coming from someone who would be considered a non-skeptic.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:16:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm worried that our opinions on a website are going to shape your views, when the world's scientific community clearly has its mind made up. Here is a list of national science acadamies that are on-board with GCC Theory:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

These are just the national academies. If you check this page out (http://en.wikipedia.org...) it shows you all the individual institutions that back it. I would love to list them here but there are so many that it would be too cumbersome.

Don't ask science drop-outs on a website, ask the experts. Talk to your professors who work in the sciences, and you'll see that there is little doubt and little dissonance amongst the scientific community.
Rob
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:17:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:16:35 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'm worried that our opinions on a website are going to shape your views, when the world's scientific community clearly has its mind made up. Here is a list of national science acadamies that are on-board with GCC Theory:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

These are just the national academies. If you check this page out (http://en.wikipedia.org...) it shows you all the individual institutions that back it. I would love to list them here but there are so many that it would be too cumbersome.

Don't ask science drop-outs on a website, ask the experts. Talk to your professors who work in the sciences, and you'll see that there is little doubt and little dissonance amongst the scientific community.

I agree with all of those institutions. The difference comes in how the effects are being presented to the public as more drastic than the reality.
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:26:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:11:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2011 8:51:32 PM, Yarely wrote:
I've been thinking about this issue again and again and I'm still quite unsure.

I just want to know your opinions either why or why not Global Warming has a fatal effect on the planet

Well, it all depends on the magnitude of effect that warming has. That's the really contentious bit. Even though I believe global warming is driven by humans, most popular estimates, such as those by Al Gore, extremely exaggerate the speed of the process.

There is also the possibility that natural processes may over time start to counter the effects of global warming. Right now we aren't positive.

Remember, this is coming from someone who would be considered a non-skeptic.

I used to be super skeptical about global warming. But now I'm not so sure anymore. I mean now I feel we do have impact but I'm still weary about how MUCH impact we have. And yeah like you said the speed of global warming is probably greatly exaggerated
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:28:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:16:35 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'm worried that our opinions on a website are going to shape your views, when the world's scientific community clearly has its mind made up. Here is a list of national science acadamies that are on-board with GCC Theory:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

These are just the national academies. If you check this page out (http://en.wikipedia.org...) it shows you all the individual institutions that back it. I would love to list them here but there are so many that it would be too cumbersome.

Don't ask science drop-outs on a website, ask the experts. Talk to your professors who work in the sciences, and you'll see that there is little doubt and little dissonance amongst the scientific community.

Thanks for that information! I really appreciate it!
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 9:38:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with all of those institutions. The difference comes in how the effects are being presented to the public as more drastic than the reality.

Every report, presentation, and lecture I've seen suggests that the problem is more problematic then we've anticipated, not less.
Rob
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 10:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you believe in fossils, I am not at all worried. Humans have walked the earth when it was both alot colder and alot hotter. I intend to be one of those humans.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 10:47:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:38:38 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I agree with all of those institutions. The difference comes in how the effects are being presented to the public as more drastic than the reality.

Every report, presentation, and lecture I've seen suggests that the problem is more problematic then we've anticipated, not less.

It's time to fix that.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 11:22:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 10:14:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you believe in fossils, I am not at all worried. Humans have walked the earth when it was both alot colder and alot hotter. I intend to be one of those humans.

Absolute temp is not the issue, it's rate of change.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2011 11:25:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's time to fix that.

I'll try and listen to the vid tomorrow I'm heading to bed. At any rate, I'm talking about scientific lectures, so one wouldn't change science unless there was a scientific reason, and like my first post alluded to, the science is pretty clear.
Rob
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 12:55:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Geothermal solutions can solve global warming with a budget less than a billion dollars of funding. Global warming shouldn't even be considered a top priority.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:33:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Stossel's summary is correct. The IPCC is about 20% scientists, and the rest non-scientist activists. Does anyone really think that all those professional organizations listed are dominated by climate scientists?

We have recently had a decade of slight global cooling, an event outside the error band of the IPCC climate models. The models are therefore invalid. I think everyone now agrees that the climate models did not include natural periodic effects like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

M.I.T. just started a new climate modeling effort on the grounds that existing models are not working. That's not a sign of settled science.

Al Gore and crisis scientists won't debate skeptics. Te crisis guys get beaten badly the few times its happened.

If CO2 induced warming is the problem claimed, there is no way to slow CO2 production significantly. Everyone would have to return to stone age living and that's not going to happen. In the US, $25 trillion spent or green energy might buy 0.01 degree of less warming. Forget it. Instead, we should look at climate engineering as a remedy. Taht wold work even for natural warming.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:39:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 11:22:28 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/1/2011 10:14:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you believe in fossils, I am not at all worried. Humans have walked the earth when it was both alot colder and alot hotter. I intend to be one of those humans.

Absolute temp is not the issue, it's rate of change.

I'm pretty sure I won't boil like a frog in a pot.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:22:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:33:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Instead, we should look at climate engineering as a remedy. Taht wold work even for natural warming.

How might that happen?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:00:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:16:35 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Don't ask science drop-outs on a website, ask the experts. Talk to your professors who work in the sciences, and you'll see that there is little doubt and little dissonance amongst the scientific community.

Specifically ask the experts at the University of East Anglia who cooked the data... oh it's okay because in the subsequent inquiry they were cleared of any wrong doing by a green lobbyist...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:08:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Humans have a fatal effect on the planet. The masses are controlled by an ignorant greedy few. The minority who controls the destruction of our planet in exchange for a lifetime of power and wealth.

Global warming is natural, only humans have accelerated it at a pace which is catastrophic to most life on the planet. The earth won't die, but most humans might.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:24:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/1/2011 9:11:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/1/2011 8:51:32 PM, Yarely wrote:
I've been thinking about this issue again and again and I'm still quite unsure.

I just want to know your opinions either why or why not Global Warming has a fatal effect on the planet

Well, it all depends on the magnitude of effect that warming has. That's the really contentious bit. Even though I believe global warming is driven by humans, most popular estimates, such as those by Al Gore, extremely exaggerate the speed of the process.

There is also the possibility that natural processes may over time start to counter the effects of global warming. Right now we aren't positive.

Remember, this is coming from someone who would be considered a non-skeptic.

Well, the Ozone holes for one, are repairing themselves and should be normal again in 100 years ever since the global ban on CFC's in 1990's. Though I'm curious, why do you believe that humans caused global warming? The evidence suggesting global warming as the cyclic counterpart of the ice age is pretty compelling.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:31:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The IPCC 2001 position of 2001 was: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

No reputable scientific body dissents from that statement: most agree with it, and a few are noncommittal.

If you want to deny that human induced global warming exists, you should be aware that the vast majority of experts disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 7:31:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:
The IPCC 2001 position of 2001 was: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

No reputable scientific body dissents from that statement: most agree with it, and a few are noncommittal.

If you want to deny that human induced global warming exists, you should be aware that the vast majority of experts disagree.

There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too...This is a developing science and a flourishing understanding and awareness of our planet made known to us humans rather recently. I am not closed to the possibility that human beings may be involved in this process, but neither will I be closed to the possibility that the entire thing is natural. The evidence supporting natural warming is truly compelling on the common sense level. It seems like we believe only half of the puzzle. How can one believe that Ice Ages are possible, but then believe that the ice magically disappeared. There must have been some natural force that caused the ice to melt. This is just one very very basic and simplistic concept attributed to natural warming. There are many more. Take a look at the following websites: http://ossfoundation.us... and http://www.geocraft.com....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 9:50:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 6:56:40 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Roy believes every scientific institution in the world has been infiltrated by GCC conspirators.

Explain why, not that long ago, prestigious professional organizations believed that homosexuality was a form of mental illness? Why was that? Because there was then a solid scientific consensus, should we refuse to accept that the theory was wrong?

The global warming argument was, in 2000, that every other possible cause of climate variation had been accounted for, and so science knew with certainty that global warming would dramatically increase. But it didn't. Temperatures have been about stable for a decade, a total impossibility under the consensus theory. To continue to believe the theory was correct is not sustainable.

Your argument pointedly ignores the facts and appeals solely to authority. That's not science.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 9:57:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 7:08:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
Humans have a fatal effect on the planet. The masses are controlled by an ignorant greedy few. The minority who controls the destruction of our planet in exchange for a lifetime of power and wealth.

Global warming is natural, only humans have accelerated it at a pace which is catastrophic to most life on the planet. The earth won't die, but most humans might.

I like that!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 10:10:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 9:57:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:08:02 AM, Tiel wrote:
Humans have a fatal effect on the planet. The masses are controlled by an ignorant greedy few. The minority who controls the destruction of our planet in exchange for a lifetime of power and wealth.

Global warming is natural, only humans have accelerated it at a pace which is catastrophic to most life on the planet. The earth won't die, but most humans might.

I like that!

Why? It is utter nonsense. Anyone who wants to debate me on global warming being caused by humans, I'm game. Anyone who also wants to debate if humans will get wiped out due to global warming, I'm game for that too. Its about time these asinine theories got debunked.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 11:41:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too

If 90% of oncologists claimed that ice cream causes cancer, I don't think you would continue eating ice cream under the rationale that scientists have been wrong in the past.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 11:46:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 11:41:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too

If 90% of oncologists claimed that ice cream causes cancer, I don't think you would continue eating ice cream under the rationale that scientists have been wrong in the past.

Strawman fallacy. Global Warming = developing science and relatively recent discovery. Ice Cream = existed and consumed for thousands of years. One has a doorway for skepticism, the other does not. Very incorrect analogy.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 11:48:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 11:41:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too

No they didn't. Two monks who should have known better thought it was flat. All the ancient cultures (well not sure about the Babylonians) knew the world was round.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 11:54:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 11:48:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 11:41:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too

No they didn't. Two monks who should have known better thought it was flat. All the ancient cultures (well not sure about the Babylonians) knew the world was round.

The model of the flat earth concept quickly declined after, as stated by historians, the rise of thallassocracies and seafaring.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 12:17:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 11:48:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 11:41:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too

No they didn't. Two monks who should have known better thought it was flat. All the ancient cultures (well not sure about the Babylonians) knew the world was round.

In the past, the church and the science department were virtual synonyms. The so called scientific experts did indeed believe that the Earth was flat, not your assertion of monks. (http://www.miafacts.org...) Science has disproved some of its old popular theories multiple times. I defy you to suggest that it hasn't.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2011 12:21:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/3/2011 12:17:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/3/2011 11:48:50 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/3/2011 11:41:58 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/3/2011 7:55:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
There's something you ought to remember kinesis, believe it or not (sarcasm), all the expert scientists once believed that the world was flat too

No they didn't. Two monks who should have known better thought it was flat. All the ancient cultures (well not sure about the Babylonians) knew the world was round.

In the past, the church and the science department were virtual synonyms. The so called scientific experts did indeed believe that the Earth was flat, not your assertion of monks. (http://www.miafacts.org...) Science has disproved some of its old popular theories multiple times. I defy you to suggest that it hasn't.

I defy you.
The view that the world was flat was a minority opinion at best. Christendom was fully aware that the world was round.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.