Any global warming deniers here?

**kingchddg90** · 2012-02-28, 02:57 PM

I do not deny that global warming exists at all. I do argue the fact humans have much to do with it.

They say that the majority of the greenhouse gasses are produced through energy use and the burning of fossil fuels. there are about 600 coal plants in the US alone yet in the 1700s 1800s and early 1900s every house burned coal or wood for light and heat i would love to see estimates for the CO2 that produced.

To finish i love to hear we are killing the earth when i hear any of the slightly out there environmentalists talk; the earth was here before us and will do just fine if we all die off tomorrow if it can take at least three major wipe-outs of life it can handle us.

this is all opinion only the number of coal plants was researched and it is an assumption that most houses did burn wood or coal for heat and light.

**Rukentuts** · 2012-02-28, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bolson13

Okay for the last time, you are litterally a moron if after 15 times you do not understand that I DO NOT HAVE A CASE IN THIS!

So that's why you came in here blurting out (without base) that scientists were doctoring their facts?

**cubby** · 2012-02-28, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Rukentuts

The CO2 readings from back then are actually very accurate.

Of course they are, they are CO2 readings. If I pulled a rock out of a volcano that was 10 million years old, and found it to be 9.08% iron, it would be a very, very accurate iron reading.

But the point is that we don't know what those readings mean, nor what they indicate in regards to current CO2 readings (or CO2 readings from other times). The issue isn't even accurate data of one sort or another, but how it all relates to climate change now, and how that all affects climate change from the past. Which we have no accurate way of reading.

However, that all being said, we should get our act together and go green tech now. There is significant data over the past 50-100 years to indicate that our CO2 production is doing something bad, and that the temperature is rising, on a global scale. Some data out there say that we are in fact forestalling another ice age, one that is 1,000 (iirc) years past-due.

**Zecora** · 2012-02-28, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Brett Skullcrack

No, you have decided that for yourself. The methodologies used in the field are not even capable of producing the kind of certainty that you have of this issue.

You clearly haven't kept current. There is a 97% percent consensus among climatologists, which is an overwhelming quantity in any field of research.

Originally Posted by Brett Skullcrack

Yet another example of why this debate has nothing to do with science. Scientific facts are not decided by voting, there have been plenty of examples where the community "consensus" has been wrong. But that's fine, those misconceptions can be set straight by future research, that's how science works. You on the other hand have religious conviction that your views are absolutely correct -- even though I dare claim you are not a scientist in this field, nor are a trained researcher in any field.

I'm sure you would like very much to link this debate to "religious conviction". What you fail to take into consideration is that everyone who argues for ACC would love nothing more than to find out that they were wrong. However, as the "evidence" presented by the opposition is beyond flimsy, we are simply not willing to stick our heads in the sand and pretend the 300-pound gorilla in the room isn't there.

That has NOTHING to do with religious conviction, and EVERYTHING to do with facing facts.

**Spectral** · 2012-02-28, 03:01 PM