Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

Originally Posted by snoop

Did you even read the rest of my post, or did you just decide to stop there?

edit: By the way, why are you so obsessed with saying others are wrong and what you believe in is the truth? That kind of thinking has no place in science or really on the earth. What you are doing is the equivalent of theists claiming that their religion is the correct religion and not even giving the possibility that they are wrong a chance. That kind of thinking is what leads to crusades, animosity, and ultimately the persecution of skeptics, free thinkers, and being able to adapt. It's extremely close minded and unbecoming of all humans. Quite frankly it just makes you look ignorant and biased as fuck.

I actually agree with this almost all the time. I think the scientific method and reason should be adhered to at all times.
I'll reply to your other comment once I figure out exactly how to put my thoughts into words, or what exactly my full thoughts on this are.

A small thing I'd like to point out though is that while science provides us with tests to measure our confidence, it gives us no concrete manner in which to interpret the confidence level received. From what I've read of other people, studies would show that we are 90% confident that climate change is occurring to the extent we predict. It's a pretty bad level of confidence to be at in general, because there is a huge margin of error. That's where a lot of scientific methods fall short, because there is no easy way to formulate a necessary confidence level taking priority into account.

I definitely agree with you that we should never assert that our beliefs are absolute fact. At any rate though, I believe that the priority and importance of climate change indicates that we should be willing to accept a lower level of confidence. This is probably where you and I disagree, with yourself choosing to wait until a higher level of confidence is reached.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions.

With that statement you demonstrate your unquestioning faith in these sources. A religious devotee of any faith and denomination would approve.

Let me requote the rest of the post, because apparently you somehow missed it:

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions. If you want to test whether the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is indeed 400ppm, you can go to the source, find out the methodology, and test it for yourself. Not being bothered is not an argument. You've also repeatedly ignored purely analytical counterarguments to your claims which require zero empirical work, so on top of being wrong, the whole premise of your defence is also a lie.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

With that statement you demonstrate your unquestioning faith in these sources. A religious devotee of any faith and denomination would approve.

But that is the difference between scientists and a "religious devotee." The 97% source (see also theconsensusproject.com) is based on thousands of peer reviewed science papers! That is hardly equivalent to "faith." It is not unusual for there to be a few science papers that upon peer review are determined to be faulty in some way or subsequent experiments are not able to duplicate the original results. What we have in this case instead is an overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science papers that all come to the same general conclusion that global warming is happening and that it is primarily man made. Your skepticism is not of faith but seems to be a skepticism of knowledge (science derives from the latin scientia meaning knowledge) and a skepticism of the scientific method and the process of peer review.

Originally Posted by snoop

edit: By the way, why are you so obsessed with saying others are wrong and what you believe in is the truth? That kind of thinking has no place in science or really on the earth. What you are doing is the equivalent of theists claiming that their religion is the correct religion and not even giving the possibility that they are wrong a chance. That kind of thinking is what leads to crusades, animosity, and ultimately the persecution of skeptics, free thinkers, and being able to adapt. It's extremely close minded and unbecoming of all humans. Quite frankly it just makes you look ignorant and biased as fuck.

That sounds all well and good, except it is utter bullshit. We are talking about observations and fact. You can argue and debate on if you think humans are the main cause or not but it is silly to argue over the observable facts. The sea level is raising, humans put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air, there is more of it in the air now than before, carbon dioxide is a green house gas that can trap heat, the earth is getting warm, land ice is melting all over are all facts.

If I use a ruler and I measure a piece of wood thirty times and find that the length of the wood is around 5 inches and someone comes by and says it is really 15 feet long, it isn't closed minded to say they are wrong. Nor is it religious like or dogmatic to say that the wood is 5 inches long because you measured it multiple times and that is what it is. But you know what? You are a not 100% sure, maybe your ruler is incorrectly marked. So you use 6 more rulers of different make and model and have seven friends all try to measure the wood. And everyone agrees and find it is 5 inches. Yet that one other guy still goes, "Well you are all wrong it is 15 feet."

Then you ask them what that idea is based on and they give some illogical reason that makes no sense. That is pretty much how this debate goes. We have all this data that clearly says something, and some people just ignore the data because they have their own opinion.

Now if you want to say no one can ever know anything in this world, and that we could be imagining everything or stuff like that, that is philosophy not science and it would be silly to deny global warming based off the philosophical idea that a person can never know anything because there is a possibility they are just a brain hooked up to a simulator.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I actually agree with this almost all the time. I think the scientific method and reason should be adhered to at all times.
I'll reply to your other comment once I figure out exactly how to put my thoughts into words, or what exactly my full thoughts on this are.

A small thing I'd like to point out though is that while science provides us with tests to measure our confidence, it gives us no concrete manner in which to interpret the confidence level received. From what I've read of other people, studies would show that we are 90% confident that climate change is occurring to the extent we predict. It's a pretty bad level of confidence to be at in general, because there is a huge margin of error. That's where a lot of scientific methods fall short, because there is no easy way to formulate a necessary confidence level taking priority into account.

I definitely agree with you that we should never assert that our beliefs are absolute fact. At any rate though, I believe that the priority and importance of climate change indicates that we should be willing to accept a lower level of confidence. This is probably where you and I disagree, with yourself choosing to wait until a higher level of confidence is reached.

No I agree with you guys, at least mostly. What I have a problem with is flat out calling others wrong and calling yourselves right. You are not guilty of this. Somebody like Alric, however, is. I can trust your judgment, his on the other hand is as valuable as somebody who flat out denies climate change because he is unwilling to even consider that the information is being misinterpreted or that there is more information to be found and the implications of such information might well change what we believe about climate change. If you insist on calling others wrong, illogical, or that what they think is utter bullshit then you are a danger to your own cause and you might as well shut up before nobody can take what you are saying seriously.

Originally Posted by Alric

That sounds all well and good, except it is utter bullshit. We are talking about observations and fact. You can argue and debate on if you think humans are the main cause or not but it is silly to argue over the observable facts. The sea level is raising, humans put a lot of carbon dioxide in the air, there is more of it in the air now than before, carbon dioxide is a green house gas that can trap heat, the earth is getting warm, land ice is melting all over are all facts.

If I use a ruler and I measure a piece of wood thirty times and find that the length of the wood is around 5 inches and someone comes by and says it is really 15 feet long, it isn't closed minded to say they are wrong. Nor is it religious like or dogmatic to say that the wood is 5 inches long because you measured it multiple times and that is what it is. But you know what? You are a not 100% sure, maybe your ruler is incorrectly marked. So you use 6 more rulers of different make and model and have seven friends all try to measure the wood. And everyone agrees and find it is 5 inches. Yet that one other guy still goes, "Well you are all wrong it is 15 feet."

Then you ask them what that idea is based on and they give some illogical reason that makes no sense. That is pretty much how this debate goes. We have all this data that clearly says something, and some people just ignore the data because they have their own opinion.

Now if you want to say no one can ever know anything in this world, and that we could be imagining everything or stuff like that, that is philosophy not science and it would be silly to deny global warming based off the philosophical idea that a person can never know anything because there is a possibility they are just a brain hooked up to a simulator.

I feel as though you have missed the entire point of my posts and you should probably refer to my answer to dutchraptor above. You might just see what I am talking about now. I don't care about what the data is saying, I'm not even arguing about that. I'm arguing with your attitude and opinion toward others because they do not understand or interpret the data as you do. If you took the time to calmly respond to them with logic and quit using over-the-top phrasing and sometimes flat out insulting others, I could actually take what you are saying seriously. Since you seem totally unrepentant and insist on saying everything I am saying is bullshit when the point of my post is quite obviously flying right over your head, you just keep digging yourself a bigger hole. I honestly just can't take you seriously man, grow up a little bit, post like a mature human being.

Originally Posted by snoop

I don't care about what the data is saying, I'm not even arguing about that.

That is pretty much your problem right there. You don't care what the data is saying. Honestly, it seems like you are just trolling and maybe if you stopped trolling, people would have a more friendly attitude towards you. I am not sure how being obnoxious and insulting people is supposed to get people to move towards your stated goal.

Would be nice if you could post like a mature human being, and stick to the data relating to the actual topic, instead of constantly going off on pointless rants.

Originally Posted by Alric

That is pretty much your problem right there. You don't care what the data is saying. Honestly, it seems like you are just trolling and maybe if you stopped trolling, people would have a more friendly attitude towards you. I am not sure how being obnoxious and insulting people is supposed to get people to move towards your stated goal.

Would be nice if you could post like a mature human being, and stick to the data relating to the actual topic, instead of constantly going off on pointless rants.

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

But that is the difference between scientists and a "religious devotee." The 97% source (see also theconsensusproject.com) is based on thousands of peer reviewed science papers! That is hardly equivalent to "faith." It is not unusual for there to be a few science papers that upon peer review are determined to be faulty in some way or subsequent experiments are not able to duplicate the original results. What we have in this case instead is an overwhelming majority of peer reviewed science papers that all come to the same general conclusion that global warming is happening and that it is primarily man made. Your skepticism is not of faith but seems to be a skepticism of knowledge (science derives from the latin scientia meaning knowledge) and a skepticism of the scientific method and the process of peer review.

First of all, it really does not matter how many people believe a particular proposition; it may still be completely wrong.

But much more importantly here, I wish you would take a step back and view the larger picture. Originally there was no such thing as "climate science". There was meteorology, and there were studies of geology, and oceanography. Then, out of nowhere you suddenly have whole masses of "climate scientists" who all work for universities (primarily government owned), and all write papers on "climate science", and all review each others papers.

How did they become "climate experts", when there was not even such a science before? The grim fact is that they are taken from all sorts of other areas (many are mere meteorologists ... and it gets worse: economists), and they would not appear to be qualified to take on such research. Moreover, they all rely on a public desire for research into "climate science", because their funding comes from governments, and only for as long as the politicians think it can buy them votes. Please think about this: these "climate scientists" have no careers, if public support for the CO2-story disappears! And all they have to do, in order to ensure the backing of people like yourself, is to accept each others papers, so that they may be published.

This should make the whole area of "climate science" extremely dubious for everyone, and for me - a hard core scientist - and very many like me around the world, this group of non-scientists who are parading around as if they were the genuine article, are both a cause for real concern, and much nuisance (since they are dragging the good name of science down with them).

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

OK, I know you're skeptic about this. But, logically, this is dangerous. You think that there is a chance these studies aren't accurate, but c'mon, who's willing to take that chance?

I'm sorry if I missed something, I didn't go through all the previous posts.

Tl;dr : These studies are scientifically overwhelmingly probable. I think we should solve this. I would never even take a 1% chance of danger when it comes to my life . I really do take heavy procedures when it comes to health and fitness for example.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

First of all, it really does not matter how many people believe a particular proposition; it may still be completely wrong.

But much more importantly here, I wish you would take a step back and view the larger picture. Originally there was no such thing as "climate science". There was meteorology, and there were studies of geology, and oceanography. Then, out of nowhere you suddenly have whole masses of "climate scientists" who all work for universities (primarily government owned), and all write papers on "climate science", and all review each others papers.

How did they become "climate experts", when there was not even such a science before? The grim fact is that they are taken from all sorts of other areas (many are mere meteorologists ... and it gets worse: economists), and they would not appear to be qualified to take on such research. Moreover, they all rely on a public desire for research into "climate science", because their funding comes from governments, and only for as long as the politicians think it can buy them votes. Please think about this: these "climate scientists" have no careers, if public support for the CO2-story disappears! And all they have to do, in order to ensure the backing of people like yourself, is to accept each others papers, so that they may be published.

This should make the whole area of "climate science" extremely dubious for everyone, and for me - a hard core scientist - and very many like me around the world, this group of non-scientists who are parading around as if they were the genuine article, are both a cause for real concern, and much nuisance (since they are dragging the good name of science down with them).

Oh, I get it now.
That's kind of shocking.
I really don't know what to say.
Well, all I can do is ask one question: Are they really un-credible to the extent that we can ignore their papers? I mean, is it really that bad? Are they really unqualified at all?
This is not sarcasm BTW, I'm really serious.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Well, all I can do is ask one question: Are they really un-credible to the extent that we can ignore their papers? I mean, is it really that bad? Are they really unqualified at all?
This is not sarcasm BTW, I'm really serious.

The only way to know for sure would be for unbiased outsiders to scrutinize their papers carefully. There would probably be needed both people knowledgeable in statistics, and in various other areas, in order to perform an in-depth review.

This, by the way, would take both a lot of time, money, and much effort, because the "climate scientists" have been very prolific.

But at the end of the day, which ever results these unbiased outsiders arrived at, there would still be public doubt. But at least they themselves would know.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

The only way to know for sure would be for unbiased outsiders to scrutinize their papers carefully. There would probably be needed both people knowledgeable in statistics, and in various other areas, in order to perform an in-depth review.

This, by the way, would take both a lot of time, money, and much effort, because the "climate scientists" have been very prolific.

But at the end of the day, which ever results these unbiased outsiders arrived at, there would still be public doubt. But at least they themselves would know.

Sounds fair enough.
Wait, is the doubt that climate change isn't true or that it's exaggerated?

Here is actually a non-scientific thought to reflect on. (Wich make it unbiased?)

1. Take some chemical toxic waste.
2. Let the toxic waste free in nature.
3. Then take some time to reflect over the combination of statement 1+2..

For anyone who thinks that global warming probably is just another conspiracy theory. I will hereby present four different answears so no one have to scratch their head bloody in confusion with this little example above.

What could be the most likely effect if the combination of statement 1+2 is put togheter. Is it

A: Nothing will happen, because everything looks the same as always.
B: Why should I bother to care?
C: Nothing will happen, because I dont like the words "global warming".
D: The chemical toxic waste will probably most likely effect the natural environment in a negative way in the long run, even if there is science to prove or disaprove the claims of global warming.

Hmmm...

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Sounds fair enough.
Wait, is the doubt that climate change isn't true or that it's exaggerated?

Different people have different doubts. Some think the idea of climate change is meaningless, because climates always change, and always have done so. Others think the "climate change"-community is exaggerating.

But really the central issues are whether CO2 has the alleged effects, and whether mankind is responsible for changing climates.

Originally Posted by LouaiB

OK, I know you're skeptic about this. But, logically, this is dangerous. You think that there is a chance these studies aren't accurate, but c'mon, who's willing to take that chance?

I'm sorry if I missed something, I didn't go through all the previous posts.

Tl;dr : These studies are scientifically overwhelmingly probable. I think we should solve this. I would never even take a 1% chance of danger when it comes to my life . I really do take heavy procedures when it comes to health and fitness for example.

You misunderstood, I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was just referring to Alric and snoop's discussion about Alric being to assertive, making absolute claims.

One of my ultimate life goals is to create as much forest as I can around the area I live. I think it's very important to think per-emptively and always assume the worst when it comes to a fragile and beautiful system like nature.

@Voldmer: since you have repeatedly said that you don't want to review the sources...how about a simple infographics-like link. Once loaded you can see the qualifications of various experts who believe that we shouldn't sit back and deny that we can have a real impact on our environment. Your position seems to be skeptic/don't want to research/no worries...instead of skeptic/let me research/maybe we need to take action. I would be glad to review any sources for your extraordinary claims that these 97% of science papers are lying to keep their jobs!! Please share that truth with me with sources and I will listen and be open-minded.

Simple graphic...click on each for their qualifications/backgrounds: 97 Hours

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

No, what he is saying is that all positions are valid and so you can never tell who is right and wrong, which is silly. There is legitimate and illegitimate arguments. If I said humans naturally glow bright orange in the dark, that isn't a legitimate statement that should be taken seriously.

So we have a position backed by facts and science and a position that is based out of ignorance of science and being scared(either of the world being damaged or being taxed to try to fix it). You can not put them both at equal levels and say both are equally valid claims because they are not. One is based on facts and the other isn't. They are not equally valid arguments.

It doesn't take a lot of knowledge of statistics to understand what I'm saying. There is no "valid" method of interpreting a confidence interval, just general guidelines. As far as climate change goes the scientific evidence is extremely strong (95% according to the ipcc), but not as absolute as most scientific principles. Choosing at what confidence interval you feel comfortable is down to each person, preferably based on a rational formula taking various factors such as priority into account.

Science doesn't say differentiate between these claims, because neither is valid/invalid, there is merely a confidence interval. It is naive to assume a 95% confidence interval doesn't represent strong evidence, but at the same rate there is still a large enough margin of error. Some people wish to wait until that error is smaller, a completely scientific thing to do.

Edit: This does not represent my opinion. This is the way science works, because science is merely a collection of knowledge in the form of probabilities. It does not make assertions as to what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate statement, as all statements are worthy of scientific analysis, even if the conclusion opposes the statement completely.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It doesn't take a lot of knowledge of statistics to understand what I'm saying. There is no "valid" method of interpreting a confidence interval, just general guidelines. As far as climate change goes the scientific evidence is extremely strong (95% according to the ipcc), but not as absolute as most scientific principles. Choosing at what confidence interval you feel comfortable is down to each person, preferably based on a rational formula taking various factors such as priority into account.

Science doesn't say differentiate between these claims, because neither is valid/invalid, there is merely a confidence interval. It is naive to assume a 95% confidence interval doesn't represent strong evidence, but at the same rate there is still a large enough margin of error. Some people wish to wait until that error is smaller, a completely scientific thing to do.

Edit: This does not represent my opinion. This is the way science works, because science is merely a collection of knowledge in the form of probabilities. It does not make assertions as to what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate statement, as all statements are worthy of scientific analysis, even if the conclusion opposes the statement completely.

That percentage isn't in reference to the earth warming or humans putting a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. So when people deny the earth is warming that isn't a matter of confidence but ignoring data.

Originally Posted by Alric

That percentage isn't in reference to the earth warming or humans putting a lot of pollution into the atmosphere. So when people deny the earth is warming that isn't a matter of confidence but ignoring data.

The percentage is the confidence that climate change is at least 50% anthropogenic.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

You misunderstood, I agree wholeheartedly with this. I was just referring to Alric and snoop's discussion about Alric being to assertive, making absolute claims.

One of my ultimate life goals is to create as much forest as I can around the area I live. I think it's very important to think per-emptively and always assume the worst when it comes to a fragile and beautiful system like nature.

Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

So there is doubt about the credibility of these papers.
OK, since I know nothing about the subject of climate change, I'm better off not disturbing your conversation. But it's good to have people watching over subjects like these! I'm sure this conversation will produce fruitful information! You're all intelligent people here, the kind of people I would call mindful!

Peace

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

No! take a step back and think about what's being said here. The further you try to push this argument the more you are proving his point.
I read his responses from the last two pages and he doesn't actually oppose climate change. He opposes the notion of taking a radical stance and neglecting logic in favour of fervent belief.
You are a perpetrator of this, stating that skepticism of a data is inherently bad because we are discussing climate change. It's a grey area of asserting fact vs imposing beliefs.

As backward as it might seem, there is still valuable criticism to be found in the arguments that some skeptics propose. Morally I don't agree with their lack of willingness to take action, but ultimately it is there choice whether or nor to be satisfied with the current level of confidence behind the various climate change principles.

Thank you so much, I knew I always liked you man. You see Alric, when I said that I don't care what the data say, I didn't mean that in the sense of this debate at all. I already expressed in several of my other posts that I believe climate change is real and that humans have a large impact on it. What was debating the whole time afterwards, which you never seemed to get (which granted I was being a raging dickhead too and not explaining myself very well), was your attitude and your willingness to flat out call others right or wrong in any sense of anything (or worse, your confidence in believing whatever you hold to be true is true without question). Our entire reality is based on logical assumptions that may or may not prove to be false the more information is discovered. Claiming any one thing is the truth is foolish and close-minded, and is worse than being flat out ignorant or stupid. People of lower intelligence cannot help it, they are stuck that way more or less, but somebody like you and the others that post on this forum are obviously intelligent and capable of change and adaptation: the very thing you are advocating by saying we are destroying the earth continuing on as we are. But your incessant labeling of people is part of the issue in the first place, it's why nobody agrees on the subject. There is too much shit and mud-flinging going on by the common folk, politicians, scientists, and corporations to even know what the possible truth could even be (let alone why we should even care considering other human beings like that exist). Being divisive is what is causing literally all the human and global issues we face on a daily and yearly basis. By taking part in it, you are doing more to destroy what you are trying to save than saving it. Can't you see?

Originally Posted by Alric

No, what he is saying is that all positions are valid and so you can never tell who is right and wrong, which is silly. There is legitimate and illegitimate arguments. If I said humans naturally glow bright orange in the dark, that isn't a legitimate statement that should be taken seriously.

This is exactly why I am warning you not to be so sure of yourself. That is not what I meant at all, but to you it must have been, because in your self-propagating close-minded outlook on the world I must be claiming that none of the data could ever mean anything at all and we shouldn't possibly hope to interpret it. On the contrary, the fact that the data can be conflicting so much is exactly why you should always pay attention to it, assume the most logical of the set, and keep in the back of your mind the other data that suggested something otherwise. Not only do you leave open the possibility that you were mistaken, but it can help you with creative reasoning and allow you to make some brilliant connections you otherwise wouldn't make. What if reality were all in your head and everyone was a projection of yourself meant to bring you to self-actualization. Well, okay, but that would mean you could fuck off and do anything right? Well, since there are conflicting sets of data here, meaning we don't know whether either case of reality being internal or external, entirely subjective or if an objective one exists or not, what would be the safest course of action to take? To act as though there were an objective reality in which other beings besides you inhabit, and that you should probably seek to understand and befriend them rather than mindlessly argue, hurt, or kill them. You can live fantasies in video games, by watching movies, listening to music, dreaming, and reading novels.

Are you starting to get what I am saying now? I have never been saying that you should ignore the data. I am saying that you are willingly ignoring data yourself and that in doing so are being just as silly, self-detrimental, and even harmful to others around you.


One last tidbit Alric, because I think you are worth the time. What makes you so sure that what you are ever being told by anybody can be regarded as factual at all? The world governments, local governments, news outlets, and other forms of media are known to be pretty dishonest and very misdirecting on purpose, they will feed you all sorts of misinformation if it means controlling your actions and what you believe. The internet is the closest thing to real, honest information as you can get, and any crazy old fuck can post whatever they want on it. It really says a lot about the information circulating through your television set, laptop, and other stuff. It suggests it is almost all entirely false, and you should only make useful assumptions, and remember the possibilities in the back of your mind. Where is your natural skepticism? I'm not claiming you have none at all, but you sure don't act like it. I've been trying to get you to admit you have some and to admit that you might be acting extremely offensive to those that might actually be open to the fact that climate change exists and those are just that many more people determined to label you as wrong too, or even just spite you and go litter as much as they can.

I know exactly what you are saying, but you are wrong. What you are not factoring into this discussion is that the first person saw that human polluting might cause global warming in 1896. They showed evidence that carbon dioxide was absorbing more heat in 1940. They had clear evidence of global warming in the 1980's. This is all before I was even born. I was born in 83, and before I was born there was already evidencing supporting global warming. 30 years later the evidence is still piling up at an obscene rate.

It isn't like this is some obscure, rarely studied topic where there isn't much evidence to support either side. There isn't conflicting data. I have read all the counter arguments against global warming, and they never have data that goes against global warming. What they usually have is data which is being misrepresented, and when you look into the data you see that the data isn't saying what they believe it does.

I look at every single piece of evidence that people who are against climate change have. I have to, because you have to understand what it is saying before you can refute it. However you never find new and original things in these discussions, it is always the same old stuff that has been proven wrong a million times. At some point you have to say enough is enough. Saying things like the earth is cooling and that proves global warming is untrue, which is common for people who are arguing against climate change, is blatantly untrue. That is not an argument that should be allowed in any serious discussion. At some point you have to say something is just wrong and isn't a legitimate argument because it makes no sense or is based on faulty or misunderstood data.

Also, I am pretty skeptical of the claim that you seem to think people are against global warming based off being labeled. I am not sure where you get that from. It seems like the reason people are against global warming is because of big oil companies lobbing the government to push anti climate change ideology, because laws to restrict pollution and find green energy alternatives may hurt them.

Originally Posted by Alric

I know exactly what you are saying, but you are wrong..

Okay now I just feel like you're trolling me man, what the fuck. I finally give up, you win, congratulations. I read the rest of your post, but your absolute unwilling to come to any kind of resolution is honestly stunning, and again, I can't even take the rest of what you said seriously. Is it really so hard to tone yourself down a notch and make yourself more appealing to others? It's an unfortunate world we live in that one must do that because others are, like you, similarly unable to show any sort of humility at all. Good luck getting only the smart people on board with voting on things that can affect future CO2 emissions, I'm sure since they can understand where you're coming from it ought to be enough without the rest of the commonfolk (which yeah, again, it sucks you have to cater to them, but seriously it's not that hard). I really don't care that you act this way per se, it's just I figured you would since you seem so much more concerned with saving the planet than me (I'm not saying that to be an asshole, I actually don't care that much what happens--obviously I want things to change, but change takes time and the minds of others agreeing with you. And honestly with you leading the forefront, this might take a really long time).