How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[s_bushido]

Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

[Vaengence]

Except the science agrees. The fact that 97% of qualified scientists agree means quite a bit more than sensationalist garbage.

First of all, agrees with what? I never replied with any of your quotes where I said you were posting unscientific points of view. I expected you to ask me "when?" or something similar, instead you shifted the argument over to a generalization of Climate Science and I believe Global Warming but as you have not specific I have no idea what you are referring to.

Oh, and I would drop using the 97% of scientists agree. This is the Climate Science equivalent of an Urban Legend - there is a gem of truth buried in it, but the truth in it actually does not support your argument so by using it, you unwittingly show no understanding of your own argument.

[Grizzly Willy]

I was addressing your false equivalency. Apologies if I don't follow your expectations.

Suppose I should ask my professor why she's lying to me then. Can you point me to the information where that's false? That the majority of researchers agree that global warming exists and is man made?

[Vaengence]

I was addressing your false equivalency. Apologies if I don't follow your expectations.

Suppose I should ask my professor why she's lying to me then. Can you point me to the information where that's false? That the majority of researchers agree that global warming exists and is man made?

False Equivalency? You made that leap not me.

Lying to you about what? This is an enormous topic with a lot of different areas. What is false? What are you arguing? Even skeptics agree that Global Warming exists and that man contributes to it. What particular section are we disagreeing with? You just like many on your side of this argument cannot explain what it is they are arguing. You are arguing a point of view where many of the "sources" come from the media, politicians and green peace activists and when asked to be more specific, the answers become more generalized.

I bet $100.00 you have absolutely no idea what it is I am arguing, but because I pointed out several instances where you are mistaken I am immediately dismissed. This is how the vast majority of people discussing this topic behave and it is why arguing just becomes a useless exercise. If you cannot formulate specific arguments, either through lack of knowledge or indifference, then just leave the topic alone.

[nogard64]

Most people will agree that climate change -- the increased average temperatures with more severe weather -- is occuring.

Not everyone will agree that climate change is caused by global warming -- mankind's activities on earth are causing climate change.

That is the difference that many people don't understand in this debate. It's not that people debate climate change, it's that people don't believe humans are causing it.

EXACTLY!

there is no argument from looking at the data that there has been a trending upward swing in temps. But the question is it man made? is it even CO2 caused? Because how can it be man caused, when if you looked at the history of earth, there has been constant warming and cooling of the planet?

And lets say it is man caused, it is CO2 caused? What real fair, reasonable solution do we have? We can't all ride bicycles and drive priuses, is just not realistic at this point in human history and human development.

I'm just really tired of the liberal freak out fest by the left, using this issue to gain political power and ascend into power by fear mongering. We need real science and real solutions.

BTW if you want to attack me call me names, let me just tell you I drive a tiny little gas sipping sedan, and I recycling everything, I'm pretty much a vegetarian. So be careful when you judge. I'm just a reasonable person who question everything and is still skeptical.

[Grizzly Willy]

Sorry for mistaking your argument. You're right, I don't know as much on this subject; my attitude has grown rather overzealous, so I jumped into a discussion without doing my research.

[Lirdax]

Off topic*though i admit i didn't read all the pages* But even though its heating up really quick, compared to the last couple millennia we're actually still in the down stroke of a cooling off on the up and down cycle of the enviroment. The problem is we're doing it to fast for life to adapt properly, not that it hasn't happened before tens of thousands of times.

[smartAXE]

Let's face it, if Global warming was as real as they say, Al Gore would have demanded presidency and we'd all be flying around like the Jetsons by now.

[Draahl]

It has been scientifically proven that our beloved earth goes through cycles, the closer we come to an ice age the more extreme the weather will become and so on. I do believe in global warming to a point, we have hastened the process between ice ages but not by much. We do need to address pollution but not because of global warming, but because of the global PH value that has gone straight to hell.

[Last Starfighter]

There's no evidence for a causal linkage between low IQ and climate change denialism. In fact, more intelligent and informed conservatives are more likely to be deniers.

It has nothing to do with IQ. You can have a smart person deny Global Warming because they feel it's fighting against a liberal ideal. Which they can't stand. There is alot to gain by trying to deny global warming and getting the sheep in line. If your a big energy company, and stand to lose changes energy and climate reform, you're going to do whatever you can to secure the cashflow. I mean, alot of people look at it like this. "My family and I aren't going to be around when the consequences are approaching, so who cares? Let's keep the duckettes rollin in". It's sad. But it's true.

Intelligent people won't say "Oh, this climate scientist is denying global warming. So therefore, GW is not a real thing." without looking into who is funding their research, and how much money they are getting.

But I don't believe deniers. I think they're denying for many reasons. But it isn't because they believe Global Warming isn't a reality. Most people aren't that ignorant.

[mvaliz]

Let's face it, if Global warming was as real as they say, Al Gore would have demanded presidency and we'd all be flying around like the Jetsons by now.

I wonder if somebody said the same thing about Galileo and his crazy insane theory of "Earth being a planet that revolves around a sun" before they forced him to recant his blasphemous statements.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 06:59 AM ----------

There's no evidence for a causal linkage between low IQ and climate change denialism. In fact, more intelligent and informed conservatives are more likely to be deniers.

There's a difference between knowledge and information.

People who watch FOX news think they have an excellent reliable source of accurate information, for example.

And, to quote a great line from Classic Doctor Who:
"Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority!"

[semaphore]

I'll go with proven scientific data that is out there showing how the earth is now in a cooling stage and not warming up. The earth goes through a cooling/heating up cycle.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

That's not "proven scientific data". That's a propaganda piece produced for the sake of spreading misinformation. The fact that the paper is published in a geography journal called "Remote Sensing" instead of any climate science publication should have been a big clue. In fact, it relies on a oversimplified model that deliberately ignores many factors in order to produce the results it produced, and makes no attempt to account for the potential errors and statistical significance of their results that any respectable scientist would.

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007... I'm sure if you google you can find more infomation about it.

Too bad you didn't take your own advice. Talking about the modest increase of Antarctic sea ice is outright deceitful, because it ignores the fact that Antarctic land ice has seen a drastic decline - causing the small sea ice in the first place. And the Arctic has not rebounded - it reached record low this year. When the only arguments you have relies on deliberately discarding almost all data, you know your denialism is on its last legs.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 07:11 AM ----------

It has been scientifically proven that our beloved earth goes through cycles

No, the Earth's climate changes when there are factors causing it to change. It is not a cycle, there is no pattern of inevitable increase or decrease.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 07:13 AM ----------

In other words. Yeah. The earth is not cooling. It's getting warmer. Unless you want to cherry-pick data. In which case it is cooling.

Well we all know how so-called "skeptics" see the world:


---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 07:16 AM ----------

there is no argument from looking at the data that there has been a trending upward swing in temps. But the question is it man made? is it even CO2 caused? Because how can it be man caused, when if you looked at the history of earth, there has been constant warming and cooling of the planet?

Because in the history of the Earth, it cooled and warmed for different reasons?

And lets say it is man caused, it is CO2 caused?

Yes. Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

I'm just really tired of the liberal freak out fest by the left, using this issue to gain political power and ascend into power by fear mongering. We need real science and real solutions.

Then maybe you should start listening to the real science which says that the Earth is warming, humans are causing it, and it's CO2? Instead of pretending it's a liberal hoax?

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 07:19 AM ----------

There's been warm and cold ages in the past. They're very slow and happen over thousands of years. Yes, our influence on the planet has some effect

If by some effect, you mean we're responsible for most of the warming we have seen in the past few decades, when this is something that happens on the scale of centuries and millennia.

[Djuntas]

Its not so damn much about climate changes, its HOW WE SHOULD TREET THE WORLD WE LIVE INN.

Gas, pollution and other shit aint healthy for you. If you live inn a urban city with alot of traffic and whatnot you're a risk off getting lung-cancer, or whatever...Im not a doctor. Its been said again and again if you live inn a place/out to a road with alot of traffic you aint living healthy - That should be the hole point.

Also Denmark, we are the best country inn the euro-zone for CO2, I think I heard...And we got a good standard of living. Think about that for one secound. We all want fresh clean air, and no insane oil leaks inn our ocean and shit.

[Vuljatar]

The term "Global Warming" is used primarily by the alarmists in an effort to get the ignorant masses to panic. That's why I don't "believe in" it.

The fact is, the climate is changing. Specifically, the earth is generally getting warmer. This isn't the first time it's happened, nor will it be the last. It's the height of foolishness to blame it all on mankind, as the alarmists do, and that's why I have nothing but disdain for them. Are we helping the situation? No. Are we making it worse? At least a little. Are we all gonna die? No. Are we gonna destroy the planet? No. Are we at least gonna ruin the planet? No. Not even a little? Well, it depends on your definition of "a little", but by my definition NO, we are not.

Is reducing pollution a good thing? Of course. But it's not some sort of divine goal that absolutely must be our primary focus.

[Aalyy]

No, it isnt just climate change, its Global warming, and to call it climate change is just an Ultra lazy PC Buzzword used to make typically right wingers feel less guilty than they should about their ignorance concerning the matter.

Both terms are legitimate but they mean different things. Global Warming describes the increase in the Earth's mean temperature we are seeing. Climate Change is the result of this warming. It doesn't mean that everywhere on Earth is going to get warm. It means the climates will change, some places will get colder, wetter, warmer, drier, etc.

The debate of whether or not human activities are causing the mean global temperature to rise is held in political circles and by the general public not science. The scientific consensus is that human activities are causing this warming and the resulting climate changes.

[Doktor Faustus]

FFS, must I spell it out so a 4 year can understand?

I ACCEPT that climate change is occuring, you would have to be severely retarded to deny it.

I ACCEPT man is having an influence on the climate.

However, man's influence is pitiful and indeed just another chapter in Earth's history.

As I said before, manmade=natural, do not believe me? So you assume man came from outer space (not talking about amino acid seeding by asteroids here) or a 'God' put us here? Plants and animals just love the new ecosystems man has created call towns and cities!

Do not worry about climate change, the Earth surely does not. It could not give a fuck if the temperature rises by 20 degrees Celsius or drops by 50.

It has seen it all before, a much more carbon dioxide rich atmosphere and a much more oxygen rich atmosphere.

What man needs to do is start ADAPTING to the changes and stop crying about them - becoming town dwellers and the digital age has made us Westerners much more lazy, too prone for bitching rather than doing - always looking for someone or something to blame.

Move away from low lying coastal areas, start using more renewables.

But there is no way we can stop the natural procress, it would have happened if man had existed or not - and even reducing the population of the globe by 99% will not reverse it.

Now, enjoy your new green products and fancy taxes to make greedy men more rich.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Scientific Consensus says that Global Climate Change induced Global Warming that is also Anthropogenic (caused by humans) is both real and conclusive. The very few denialism articles are published by those with very little credibility in the field and base degrees of knowledge.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

In other words, the deniers believe a bunch of crazy lunatics who don't know what they're talking about, and the informed who accept anthropogenic global warming follow a well respected and knowledgeable community of climate scientists.

Now, enjoy your new green products and fancy taxes to make greedy men more rich.

You mean the subsidies paid for lower gas prices that ultimately get paid by our tax dollars, so that oil companies can continue to make record profits?

[semaphore]

Do not worry about climate change, the Earth surely does not. It could not give a fuck if the temperature rises by 20 degrees Celsius or drops by 50.

Why do people keep saying this as though it is in any way relevant or meaningful? Way to completely miss the point. Of course the Earth doesn't care. It's humanity that's in trouble.

As I said before, manmade=natural,

Arguing semantics is nothing to be proud of.

But there is no way we can stop the natural procress, it would have happened if man had existed or not

Yeah, no. What's happening now is only happening because of human carbon emission. This is not a natural process no matter what word games you play.

[Itisamuh]

Nobody denies climate change. It's just that some of us aren't arrogant enough to think that humanity alone is causing it. It's happened before.

[semaphore]

Nobody denies climate change. It's just that some of us aren't arrogant enough to think that humanity alone is causing it. It's happened before.

True arrogance is believing that your actions have no consequences.

With all due respect, saying "it's happened before" is just being ignorant. Natural climate change is extremely slow and does not happen for no discernible reason. We know why the planet is warming now. That it has warmed for different reasons in the past is not the sort of super duper meaningful point that skeptics think it is when they bring it up every single page.