The Student Room Group

Global Warming.

Hello everyone.

I recently had to write two papers after watching "An Inconvenient Truth", and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" for homework - one supporting global warming, and one against it - and I seem to have got myself very confused. Before this I was pretty certain that climate change is happening, as a cause of humans and increased C02 levels. Now I find myself in a position where I'm generally thinking that climate change is happening, but we can't say why with any real certainty. Is this correct?

I've done some reading around and have noticed that some people seem to have had a crack at Martin Dirken for distorting the views of the scientists that were interviewed in TGGS. Also I recognise that since TGGS was produced more or less in response to AIT, so my conclusions are bound to be slightly biased anyway.

If anyone could help clear this up for me in my head I'd be very happy. :smile:
Also, I'll gladly send anyone my papers if they feel like being uber critical, because the above isn't a lot to go on really.
Reply 1
One of those areas where there is sufficient evidence either way to support both arguments. Quite a bit of rhetoric and biased information chucked around by both sides. Which can muddy the waters.

To know yourself with any certainty you'll need to look at the evidence and weigh it up yourself. Deciding if one side or the other (or even both) is right or wrong. Too many people just listen to what they want to hear, or get panicked by someone saying something. You are already ahead of the game by being confused.
Reply 2
mart2306
One of those areas where there is sufficient evidence either way to support both arguments. Quite a bit of rhetoric and biased information chucked around by both sides. Which can muddy the waters.

To know yourself with any certainty you'll need to look at the evidence and weigh it up yourself. Deciding if one side or the other (or even both) is right or wrong. Too many people just listen to what they want to hear, or get panicked by someone saying something. You are already ahead of the game by being confused.


Thanks, that's very reassuring but it doesn't make me feel any less confused! I'm not one for starting arguments, but if you or anyone else just feels like chucking out a personal insight then that would be great. As it often happens with controversial topics, I'll probably end up agreeing with someone much smarter than myself that seems to know what they're on about. Then after a while something new will surface, and I'll end up changing my position entirely.

It was a bit of a gamble asking this question on TSR, because everyone's heard something about global warming, and not necessarily from the same sources that I've used. Still, new knowledge (even if inaccurate) can only be a good thing I suppose.
mart2306
One of those areas where there is sufficient evidence either way to support both arguments. Quite a bit of rhetoric and biased information chucked around by both sides. Which can muddy the waters.

To know yourself with any certainty you'll need to look at the evidence and weigh it up yourself. Deciding if one side or the other (or even both) is right or wrong. Too many people just listen to what they want to hear, or get panicked by someone saying something. You are already ahead of the game by being confused.


Strangly enough I was listening to a BBC 4 radio topic on Global warming 2days ago, anyways if i wasn't half a sleep i would have given more attention to your question sorry.

my view is that the issues of global warming has been turned into a billionaire business industry only benefiting those fake and false individual selling the idea as a new must have product to consumers who are naviely believing them.
Reply 4
geeksandtherest
Strangly enough I was listening to a BBC 4 radio topic on Global warming 2days ago, anyways if i wasn't half a sleep i would have given more attention to your question sorry.

my view is that the issues of global warming has been turned into a billionaire business industry only benefiting those fake and false individual selling the idea as a new must have product to consumers who are naviely believing them.


It wasn't by any chance Martin Brigstocke on 'The Now Show'? I had a listen to that one, he's very funny :p:

I agree wholeheartedly with your view though; there is a lot to be gained nowadays by advertising new 'green technology', and a lot of it smells very fishy.
Reply 5
fizzicsfiend
Thanks, that's very reassuring but it doesn't make me feel any less confused! I'm not one for starting arguments, but if you or anyone else just feels like chucking out a personal insight then that would be great. As it often happens with controversial topics, I'll probably end up agreeing with someone much smarter than myself that seems to know what they're on about. QUOTE]

I'm heard respected scientists who are qualified to know what they are talking about on each side of the argument.
Leads me to think we don't yet have enough information yet or else people are working on the wrong theory.

If the facts are xxxx, and there are seemingly opposing theories using some of those facts, does it make the facts wrong? One or more theories wrong? Or are the facts themselves incomplete?
Reply 6
mart2306

I'm heard respected scientists who are qualified to know what they are talking about on each side of the argument.
Leads me to think we don't yet have enough information yet or else people are working on the wrong theory.

If the facts are xxxx, and there are seemingly opposing theories using some of those facts, does it make the facts wrong? One or more theories wrong? Or are the facts themselves incomplete?


If there is disagreement over the interpretation of the same data, then one or more theories are incorrect, but presumably the argument could be resolved. I suppose what we're approaching here is that if the debate is somewhat resolved for the time being, it is only such that we can say "Nothing can be concluded with any concrete certainty".

If the data at hand is insufficient, or contradictory to previously obtained data, then that is a different situation entirely and we can only await future explanations. This seems more favourable to me. Thoughts?

Latest