Tbh I don't think this debate is really go anywhere, it's turning into a 'I want to be right' thing rather than a 'let's find an answer'. I started it to see if there some sort of detailed and well thought out reasoning as to why most major international scientists would either lie or be completely wrong. In my opinion there hasn't been, so I don't think there's much more to learn from this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R12Hx-e3aY
(Glenn Beck is probably the biggest moron out of any news anchor in the world. Having him on the denialist side is almost an argument for Global Warming in itself)
its certainly not a minority view as I have said 10000 times.
Ok I give up with this, you're definitely doing it on purpose now.
Once again:
Are you referring to my reference to 'minority'? I was talking about scientific minority.
That's its a scientific minority that share your views is simply a fact. Period.
Ok as I said this is going nowhere, good day to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R12Hx-e3aY
(Glenn Beck is probably the biggest moron out of any news anchor in the world. Having him on the denialist side is almost an argument for Global Warming in itself)
The Daily Mail will publish it, that kind of newspaper do, I mean't the BBC etc.
Originally Posted by touchofclass
Ok I give up with this, you're definitely doing it on purpose now.
Once again:
That's its a scientific minority that share your views is simply a fact. Period.
Ok as I said this is going nowhere, good day to you.
Proof please, I don't care how many socities, numbers of climate scientists vs climate scientists.
Proof please, I don't care how many socities, numbers of climate scientists vs climate scientists.
Theres a link on the first page. I know its from Wiki, but you can follow the sources. Its says that since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has opposed global warming, but some have held non-commitial positions.
Global warming may or may not be a conspiracy.
Global warming may or may not be caused by humans.
Global warming may or may not be true.
There is a trend to be cocksure and arrogant and give intelligent sounding comments in opposition to issues that are widely taken as true. Global warming is widely taken as true. However, this doesn't mean we should take for granted that it IS!
The fact that there remains debate that it may or may not be true is beside the point.
EVEN IF there was only a 1/10 chance that global warming was indeed caused by human beings, is it right to be so arrogant as to not bother to change? If someone put a revolver, with only one bullet in chamber, in your hands and said 'there is a slim chance that putting this against someones head and pulling the trigger will kill them, but go ahead and try it. I'll give you £100,000' would you do it?
£100,000 is enough to dramatically improve your life.
I would argue that maintaining our current lifestyle at the risk of global warming isn't even worth £100,000. If the entire world changed to deal with the possibility of human global warming, then the net loss to individual lifestyle is NOTHING compared to possible losses in the future for the rest of all time.
Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the possibility is enough to stop all the bull and arrogance that is merely a barrier for the development of the human race. We may as well believe it to be true. For the sake of our children.
Global warming may or may not be a conspiracy.
Global warming may or may not be caused by humans.
Global warming may or may not be true.
There is a trend to be cocksure and arrogant and give intelligent sounding comments in opposition to issues that are widely taken as true. Global warming is widely taken as true. However, this doesn't mean we should take for granted that it IS!
The fact that there remains debate that it may or may not be true is beside the point.
EVEN IF there was only a 1/10 chance that global warming was indeed caused by human beings, is it right to be so arrogant as to not bother to change? If someone put a revolver, with only one bullet in chamber, in your hands and said 'there is a slim chance that putting this against someones head and pulling the trigger will kill them, but go ahead and try it. I'll give you £100,000' would you do it?
£100,000 is enough to dramatically improve your life.
I would argue that maintaining our current lifestyle at the risk of global warming isn't even worth £100,000. If the entire world changed to deal with the possibility of human global warming, then the net loss to individual lifestyle is NOTHING compared to possible losses in the future for the rest of all time.
Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the possibility is enough to stop all the bull and arrogance that is merely a barrier for the development of the human race. We may as well believe it to be true. For the sake of our children.
Although you're sort of embracing the need for environmental change which is good, I disagree with your reasoning. I only subscribe to global warming because it's a strong scientific consensus. If the consensus told me otherwise, I wouldn't just go "Full steam ahead with global upheaval!" in the off chance the consensus was wrong. With that line of thinking you'd have to follow up any old threat.
You could say we have to build a 10 trillion dollar shield in space, because how 'arrogant' it would be to assume that we won't be hit by a meteor?
No, we have to factor scientific balance into all our decisions.
If all major scientific organisations said there wasn't MMGW, I would hope we wouldn't spend all our time panicking about carbon. We would still need to enact environmental measures such as recycling and finding renewable sources of energy (because even if fossil fuels weren't killing the planet they would still run out) but this could be done more smoothly and less drastically without the need to be low carbon hanging over us all the time.
Your analogy is also not a good one. If you followed it through it'd be like some being flying to earth and saying 'Hey guys, I'll give you a trillions of dollars if you accept a one in ten chance the earth would be destroyed'. But it's not that, it's spending money we have, which is significant.
Reimagine your analogy this way: Someone comes up to you and says "Unless you give me £100,000 pounds, I'll put a gun to your head and there'll be a 1/10 chance of you dying". Not as easy is it?
EDIT: Obviously 1/10 isn't an insignificant probability, and it would have to be taken into some sort of consideration, but I was more arguing against your sweeping principle that if there's any chance at all of something happening then we would be arrogant not to address it. I disagree and think things need to be weighed up and if the risks aren't much at all, or addressing them based on such a small probability isn't worth it, then things can be dismissed.
Last edited by touchofclass : 2 Weeks Ago at 17:05.
Incidentally (this may or not be relevant depending on your opinion) Roger Helmer is known for his extreme paranoid views and his belief that the concept of 'homophobia' is invented by 'militant gay lobbyists' as a 'propaganda tool'.
I don't have time to watch it all, but just from the blurb I already noticed this classic misconception: "pointing out that the world has cooled in the last ten years (and cooled sharply in 2007)"
The guy who did this research explicitly made clear that this was part of the global upward trend. He knew that denialists would begin misinterpreting it straight away. I would recommend this short video:
Incidentally (this may or not be relevant depending on your opinion) Roger Helmer is known for his extreme paranoid views and his belief that the concept of 'homophobia' is invented by 'militant gay lobbyists' as a 'propaganda tool'.
I don't have time to watch it all, but just from the blurb I already noticed this classic misconception: "pointing out that the world has cooled in the last ten years (and cooled sharply in 2007)"
The guy who did this research explicitly made clear that this was part of the global upward trend. He knew that denialists would begin misinterpreting it straight away. I would recommend this short video:
Which shows exactly what he said, and how immediately certain news networks completely misinterpreted it.
I
I didn't say it held anything, I just said it was interesting.
Also, a classic word anthropogenic climate change campaigners use is denial/denialist... They don't deny climate change... They deny anthropogenic climate change.
I didn't say it held anything, I just said it was interesting.
Also, a classic word anthropogenic climate change campaigners use is denial/denialist... They don't deny climate change... They deny anthropogenic climate change.
Fair enough, interesting in which sense? I thought you might mean interesting as in is a valid contribution to the debate.
When I use the word 'denialist' I mean those who deny anthropogenic climate change, I didn't realise it was any sort of concrete term.
Err, even a rudimentary understanding of evaluating the credibility of evidence would suggest that a non-climatologist writing in a newspaper is a rather shoddy and unreliable contribution.
Calm down, I just thought people may find it interesting, which if you look back a couple of pages someone did. It was certainly more valuable then some of the posts in this thread. I was not presenting this as definitive proof either if you read my comment regarding the article. Furthermore just so you know, The Times is actually a fairly reputable publication.
I don't dispute that the global temperatures will rise - I only dispute the 'fact' that we, the human race, are entirely responsible. Given that for most of the history of the Earth there has not been ice at the geographic poles and that average global temperatures have been higher for long periods of time, it would be foolish to say that what will happen over the next few hundred years is entirely our fault. Yes, we are probably accelerating the process and we should be cutting emmissions of harmful gases and looking for energy alternatives, but we should keep in mind that the polar ice caps WILL melt at some point - you cannot hope to fight nature and win.
But CO2 is not the cause
(how many times will I have to say this to you?)
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it plays part in the greenhouse effect, and because of developing economy and industries we're increasing the emission of this gas enhancing this effect no?
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it plays part in the greenhouse effect, and because of developing economy and industries we're increasing the emission of this gas enhancing this effect no?
CO2 has barely any greenhouse tendencies.
Water vapour on the other and, whole different story.
Informal discussion on any topic (within reason). Use the 'Chat' forum for informal talking.
Re: Why do so many people dispute Global Warming?
