Login/Sign Up




Global Warming Scam? Revisiting the debate!
Politics

lqtm
Sep 29, 2007
9 votes
10 debaters
3
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

6
Not Accurate!


lqtm
Sep 29, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
It is virtually all democrats, some republicans, almost all Europeans, the MSM (main stream media), and unfortunately, a lot of uninformed people around the world who are rightly concerned about a clean environment and the planet going to hell. I also am concerned, but not about “global warming”. The planet has a long history of warming and cooling and it will continue to do so with little influence from us. In fact, it is actually the “natural process” of the earth. Interestingly, A little research and common sense is all it takes to understand how bogus this whole global warming crisis is. Yes, the earth has been in a warming trend for the last 100 years and it will probably warm maybe 1 to 2 degrees over the next 50 to 100 years, and then go back into a cooling cycle. Sea level will rise maybe go up 2 to 6 inches over that same time period. This is not rocket science. These are the basic facts.



But the message that everyone gets is that the world is normally static. It doesn’t normally change. And because of us (largely the US) the world as we know it is coming to an end. All glaciers and polar ice caps will be melting, all the worlds coastlines will be flooded, there will be more horrible storms, drenching rains and flooding everywhere else, (except where there is horrible drought), there will be horrible diseases, tropical heat all over the world (except in the vast new deserts and then it will be drought), famine everywhere, polar bears eating each other, etc., all because we are driving SUVs (and breathing, yes about 20% of the world’s CO2 does come from every living thing breathing, damn us all to hell). No one seems to be able to envision that a little global warming would actually be a good thing in areas like Moscow (where my family lives).

This is junk science at its worst, being sold as absolute fact. It is neither fact nor unchallenged, but you will never hear of that through the media or from Al Gore. You are continually told there is a consensus of scientists that agree it is really happening. It is settled. Really? There is in fact not a consensus, and anyway, science is not based on consensus but rather facts. It either is or it isn’t, or there are not enough facts. Scientists don’t vote on these things!

Unfortunately, a lot of people are uninformed and/or afraid of a little science and will not check the facts.
My concern is not only that it is junk science being pawned off as fact (which truly offends me), but that if enough people fall for this crap, politicians will feel free to impose draconian measures on us that will create a lot of day-to-day problems we will have to live with, (limitations of our freedom, our ability to work and earn a living and taxation). And the ultimate irony, these measure will not actually do anything to reduce the average temperature of the earth. I believe the ultimate consequences are dire and very very counter productive to our society.

Given the extreme measures that can be imposed on us, I am surprised at how few people are willing to actually look at the facts and understand these consequences. I think that we should always continue take measures to reduce pollution and clean up our environment. This has in fact been the on ongoing process since the 70’s and in the US our air and water have continued to get better every year. I think our efforts and money should continue be focused on doing continuing to do that, not sidetracked into the myth of reducing “global warming”.

Sorry, I got off on a rant. That is more than I intended to write and more than you probably care to read. However, I think people need to be worried. This has the potential to affect the next generations in pointlessly stupid ways.

What I originally meant to post as an argument was this link: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

 
thewhitedwarf
Sep 29, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I think that the problem with global warming isn't ever articulated correctly. I believe that humans have an impact on global warming but it is very small.

 
unlabled00
Sep 29, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I really can't be bothered to rewrite every single argument i've made on this site about global warming...

I think it'd come to 5 pages worth of words.

 
unlabled00
Sep 29, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Ohhh bother...

1. The Earth is dynamic, it changes over time. It has been warming for over 40,000 years, since the Little Ice Age and continues to warm today.

Fact is, the planet we call Earth is subject to warming that advances in a non-linear, chaotic manner. Scientists have yet to prove how much global warming has been caused by humans, and how much has naturally occured since our existence. Without important figures such as that, how will we really know what is responsible
for global warming?

Heres a small hint, the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide in order to combat global warming. Even WITH the USA on board (which it isnt), it would only be able to reduce the rise in temperature by 0.04 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

2. research has proven that there is no
way to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions by humans to the extent we emit them in this day and age. There is no adequate power source that could do this, the closest being nuclear power. Wind power and hydropower are plausible, however the number of windmills and hydropower plants and the resources that would go into building them would prove overall inefficient.

As my previous argument states, our big role is quite small compared to the ways of Mother Nature.

Of course some of the global warming is our fault, however efforts to stop global warming will be as feeble as trying to stop the tide from coming in.

3. Ice Ages occur approximately once every 20,000 years... they aren't the nature's responce to problems.

4. Let us go back to the 1970's. Back in the age of Ford there was a catastrophe at hand. Scientific research had shown that the world was slipping into global cooling, and many leading scientific
figures were on board.

UC Davis' Kenneth Watt back on Earth Day, 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about
twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”

Similar comments were made by organizations and companies such as International Wildlife, Science Digest, the Christian Science Monitor, and Newsweek.

If someone back in the 1970's was to say that the earth would definitely warm in the coming 30 years, it would be considered outrageous. As outrageous as it may be for us to state that
global warming is over rated. To quote Mark Twain, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

Man can not be the sole cause for the 'soaring' climate change we are experiencing (cities around the world find their average temperatures dropping). The sun's effect on the earth is at an
all time high for the last millenia. This undoubtedly must have SOME affect on the climate of the earth.

I refer you to the UN IPCC's Third Assessment Report from 2001. After numerous portions stating the impossibility of predicting global warming due to man's incapability to monitor his own behavior (ie. population change, economic change, echnological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity), it moves on to state “The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of
model solutions. ” The UN IPCC states that long term prediction is not possible (ie. a century or more). Why? Because as I've mentioned so many times before, the earth's climate system is non-linear and chaotic. As such, no level of linear analysis or comparisons could hold to it properly

5. Both sides have Hollywood presentations "proving" their points.

Back in the 1960s there were books that talked about the wonders of electro-magnetic energy and how it helps your body...

In the 1970's/80's/Erin-Brockovich-movie there were books/movies on how dangerous and cancer-causing they were, and that people
really shouldn't live under power lines.

Bringing this myth-over-fact full cycle, now everyone can't get enough of their electromagnetic swag: bracelets, neclaces, even bed mats!

Don't think just because "everything is real" its ACTUALLY real. The fact that the science behind global warming is not repeatable means its not science. Its more of a religion.

6. CO2 emissions only occur for 2% of man's total affect on global climate... the only reason politicians and political activists push for CO2 regulation and reduction is because its an easier
target than the other 98% (ie. land use and urbanization)

The thing is, human effects on global warming are small anyway... and 'global warming' as it is known today, and as most people see it today, is man's affect on the global climate.

I'm saying our effect is not at the extent that popular belief thinks it is... and that the warming of the earth is PRIMARILY due to the natural cycle.

The debate topic is "Global Warming: Man's Fault" and on that note, no... it is not man's fault. We are merely a drop in the bucket, and I can only wait to see what will happen when we experience the next drop in climate.

-end repeated arguments-

Those are my arguments from a debate called "Global Warming, Man's Fault?" I'm not sure how much collective sense they make when taken out of context since some of them are responces to rebutals but thats one blob of text I have for you guys.

 
cbart95
Sep 29, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kenk Show

Take a look at : "Poppycock".

 
lqtm
Sep 30, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Take a look at "Nitpicking in Debates" debate. Sorry couldn't resist.

http://www.convinceme.net/viewOpenDebate.php?dib=2239

 
cbart95
Oct 01, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Why bother when someone as stolid as yourself is around to brass tonsil even the most pig headed proponent of the stupidity of the hoax of "global warming"?

You happen to be dead right. (Thank God!)

You also happen to be boring as all get out.

You must learn to write so"that those that run may read".

Thanks for speaking the painfully obvious...but only fools argue facts.

 
+ Add Argument

3
Reality!


vancam
Sep 29, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lqtm Show

Corporate smear campaigns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnt3FWToSWs


I suppose you believe the tobacco guys when they told you that smoking isn't addictive or harmful.

 
kenk
Sep 29, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lqtm Show

It isn't only us citizens, the media, and the politicians that believe in global warming - it is also an accepted fact in the scientific community that we have an influence on the earth's climate. While the earth does go through normal cycles of warming and cooling, and while global warming is naturally occuring at a fixed pace, it has been shown that our emissions have a large effect on atmospheric depletion beyond that of nature.

Also, take a look at this: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

 
grndhg
Sep 30, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
When the future of humanity is at stake, i think it would be wise to err on the side of caution until someone proves otherwise.

 
juggernaut
Sep 29, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lqtm Show

holy text

 
cbart95
Sep 29, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lqtm Show

Look up: "Pearls before swine".

Learn to: "marshall your thoughts".

Beware of: "False Prophets".

 
gogopoet
Sep 29, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I lost the debate on this, but my opponant never convinced me that the majority of scientists are wrong, just that he/she had more links to post than me.

 
unlabled00
Sep 29, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

Take a look at: "Actually contributing to debates."

 
unlabled00
Oct 02, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: cbart95 Show

Aw damn, I thought you'd finally left.

 
leehester
Sep 22, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There is little need to argue. There is a scientific consensus. The few anti-anthropogenic global warming "experts" out there appear to me to be sell-outs and/or frauds.

After hearing the anti-anthropogenic global warming position about a zillion times from a wingnut friend of mine (I was once one myself and still count many as friends), I decided as a good philosopher, to really put it to the test. Try to really find out....

So, I searched a variety of websites for information against global warming and found a right-wing "think tank" that had a list of something like 400 top experts who supposedly had written papers proving that any warming we might be experiencing has nothing to do with humans.

I decided to write their experts, many of whom were at top universities, to see what they really thought. In each case I had to find their e-mail address myself, so it took many hours just to compile the first 40 or so --- but it was enough to convince me....

Out of the first forty, every single one agreed that global warming is happening and that humans are a cause. All but one said that humans were the main cause. All but one said that the warming represented a serious (maybe even catastrophic) problem. Several of them commented on the fact that there was a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists.

My conclusion... the think tank was lying through its teeth.

Interestingly, a few of the scientists tried to figure out how their research could have been so completely mischaracterized. In each case they figured that the compilers had used some of their 10-20 year old papers from back in the heyday of research on solar cycles. That research suggested solar cycles were responsible for many hot and cold periods in the past. But that research, though still considered good, cannot and does not account for current warming trends... trends which only anthropogenic models account for.

These and many other researchers I wrote called the use of their research by the think tank a fraud. More than one mentioned the repeated abuse of their research and one even said he had an ongoing lawsuit with an oil company over the fraudulent misrepresentation of his research.

It took me a little time and effort, but in the end it became clear to me that there is no significant doubt in the scientific community that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong