Thread: Global Warming- WTF PEOPLE!!!

See [rest of thread] for examples which show that, to be honest, you just spouted a load of crap.

I care as much about saving forests, wildlife, and reducing the amount of oil used, as the next person. I just don't believe that I'm helping to cool the planet via my actions. What the hell is so bad about that?

You should actually read what people have said instead of following your pre-formed assumptions about what 'kind of people' the skeptics are. ethen has said exactly the same sort of thing.

I actually belong to an incredibly eco-friendly household, compared to most. We recycle all biodegradable waste as compost, and all edible waste is fed to our chickens. We use a log burner to heat the house, burning wood from the local, sustained forest.

How eco-friendly are you, by the way? Just out of interest.

So anyway, don't give me that 'skeptics don't give a shit about the planet' crap.

It's totally untrue. I have absolutely no bias in this debate, as it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the way I live; you should consider that. I don't shy away from the consensus out of habit like some conspiracy nut, either. I just use my own initiative to look at the data myself, instead of trusting others to make that decision for me, which is a dangerous thing to do.

And can we please stop idly throwing around the word 'ignorant', it really is completely immature if you want to talk about these sorts of things seriously.

Originally Posted by Neruo

It's so easy to say "OH LOOK @ TEH VULCANO ITS GIVEZ MUR C02 TEHN MY CAR ZO I CAN'T BE BLAMED"

First of all, what you are doing is called a strawman fallacy. You are distorting my argument/my image to fit that of an annoying, low-brow, all-caps using, net-speaking moron who can't spell and has no actual understanding of the issue...all in a lame attempt to discredit what I have said without actually adressing my points. Im not sure how many times that gimmick has worked for you in the past, but it doesnt work with someone who has actually taken a course in logic...

Originally Posted by Neruo

Also, where did you even get those numbers? They sound a bit exaggerated.

Originally Posted by ethen

A number of scientists believe that global warming is due to the Sun emitting more heat than its has for a while, which before recently seemed just as speculative as the "its all the humans fault" theory. But now that we know the ice caps on mars are melting, along with ours, I think its safe to say that the sun is indeed playing a very significant, a perhaps primary role to global warming...and maybe not us.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._southpole.htm

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?...lover&ie=UTF-8


And not to mention that humans account for only what, 5% of the earths CO2 production...maybe? And all of the CO2 in the world, nature and man-made combined, only accounts for a fraction of the earths total greenhouse gasses. If you work out the math, you will find that we are only .28% of the problem, which means if we were to stop all man-made greenhouse emitions completely, 99.72% of the problem remains...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?...lover&ie=UTF-8

And you are calling me ignorant? You didnt even take the time to read the whole 1 page of this thread before formulating judgements, not only about my argument, but also about me as a person.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Also, people produce quite a shit load some other greenhouse gasses too.

CO2 is, by far, the principle greenhouse gas we are producing because of our life styles. This is why the main concern is about burning fossile fuels, seeing as that results in CO2 emitions.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I am getting so tired of these ignorant people that like to act like just because global warming is an over-popular topic there is nothing wrong. It doesn't look like coincidence to me that almost All of the "oh, global warming is nonsense"-people don't seem to give a general crap about the environment, stopping pollution, stopping smog, stuff like that all together.

Now your just digging yourself a hole. You assume I take the stance I do simple to resist the concensus. You assume I don't care about the environment. You assume I'm ignorant when it comes to the issue global warming. And what exacly do you base all of this off of? Surely its not my other posts, seeing as you have yet to actually read them (much less research what they suggest). Maybe if you spent less time assimilating me into your "ignorant skeptic" schema and more time actually listening to what I have to say, you could attribute something a bit more valuable to this discussion than your angst.

Originally Posted by Xei

See [rest of thread] for examples which show that, to be honest, you just spouted a load of crap.

I care as much about saving forests, wildlife, and reducing the amount of oil used, as the next person. I just don't believe that I'm helping to cool the planet via my actions. What the hell is so bad about that?

You should actually read what people have said instead of following your pre-formed assumptions about what 'kind of people' the skeptics are. ethen has said exactly the same sort of thing.

I actually belong to an incredibly eco-friendly household, compared to most. We recycle all biodegradable waste as compost, and all edible waste is fed to our chickens. We use a log burner to heat the house, burning wood from the local, sustained forest.

How eco-friendly are you, by the way? Just out of interest.

So anyway, don't give me that 'skeptics don't give a shit about the planet' crap.

It's totally untrue. I have absolutely no bias in this debate, as it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the way I live; you should consider that. I don't shy away from the consensus out of habit like some conspiracy nut, either. I just use my own initiative to look at the data myself, instead of trusting others to make that decision for me, which is a dangerous thing to do.

And can we please stop idly throwing around the word 'ignorant', it really is completely immature if you want to talk about these sorts of things seriously.

Thank you

Originally Posted by ethen

First of all, what you are doing is called a strawman fallacy. You are distorting my argument/my image to fit that of an annoying, low-brow, all-caps using, net-speaking moron who can't spell and has no actual understanding of the issue...

lol.

You just lost my attention when you seriously took the afford to discuss and care and value a little l4me all-caps INTERWEBZ sarcasm.

It's fun.

Look it up in the dictionary.

It's under the letter F.

Actually sarcasm is often how such fallacies come about. The interesting thing is that distorting the argument via sarcasm allows the individual all of the advantages of your typical straw man fallacy, except it also affords the added convenience of being able attack someone without actually making oneself vulnerable to counter-criticism/rebuttal. It's somewhat clever, assuming you were actually aware of what it was you were doing...which you may not have been.

Regardless, you attacked my point of view in an indirect manner (i.e. with sarcasm), because that way you could say or imply whatever you want, not matter how false or contrived, and not have to worry about defending it or yourself. If it ever came up, all you would have to claim is that you were being sarcastic, and magically it would seem as if you could no longer be held accountable for substantiating your comments. And yet the comments would still remain, and so to would their implications...

And that, my friends, is how someone can get away with BS arguments. Not with me though. I will call you out every time.

Originally Posted by ethen

And that, my friends, is how someone can get away with BS arguments. Not with me though. I will call you out every time.

Wait... are you asking me for my phone number?? :0

and if I was?

RAPE RAPE ..

Seriously though..
Ethen has a lot more arguments than the other guys.. but what do I know?
I only posted to say the rape thing anyway..

UH!!

...so. YEAH.. Global warming!

Sucks.

I have a few things to say:

1. CO₂ makes up about 2-3% of global warming.
2. There are hundreds of farms with thousands of cows that emit more methane than automobiles, and coal plants. Methane is also one of the larger causes of the greenhouse effect.
3. Human evolution can only last 1-2000 years anyway.
4. There is a cycle:

Bacteria create CO₂ > Plants use the CO₂ to make oxygen > Animals eat the plant, and other animals, and emit methane and CO₂ > the methane causes global warming (along with a bit of CO₂) > the ice caps melt > there is an ice age

^
This cycle is as continuous as evolution, and like evolution, is unstoppable no matter what you think about it.

Its good that this is in the Philosophy section, becasue i have a theory about the global warming fiasco. The fiasco will never die. Anyone who questions the current theory of global warming is scrutenized and labled as murderer of the planet. It doesnt matter who's right or wrong, all that matters is who looks like the asshole. That is why people argue about it more than they act. So, whatever. I guess some people can be smug self satisfied bafoons if they want to.

If you want to stop global warming DON'T WINE HERE!

http://www.thebigask.com/ <--------------- wine here

Silly Gloaming, you can't stop global warming anymore that you can stop the sun from rising, and the people who are obsessed about it need to get lives, and lighten up. They'll be dead before the ice caps are entirley gone .

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Silly Gloaming, you can't stop global warming anymore that you can stop the sun from rising, and the people who are obsessed about it need to get lives, and lighten up. They'll be dead before the ice caps are entirley gone .

It is true that an ice age wont come in our lifetime


or our children's lifetimes

or their children's lifetimes

and that global warming has occurred many times in our earths past.

but I suppose we can always try

Global cooling was the big scare the fanatics of the religion of liberalism were throwing at the world earlier in MY lifetime. Now it's global warming. I recently posted a history of the back and forth on those two big scares that has been going on since the American Civil War. What I do know is that Earth warms up for a while and then cools off for a while. It does this without humans, and so do other planets. Mars is experiencing global warming right now. A whole lot of credible scientists have said that humans are not causing an abnormal level of global warming. Maybe they are wrong, but I am not going to jump the gun and just assume they are. I am not that easily manipulated.

I was only calling anyone ignorant that bought the popular media's tagline, "We're not quite sure about Global Warming!" There is so much evidence, at this point it's like not believing in Evolution.

Ya, but we don't no if humans are to blame for global warming. Like I said before, there is evidence that the earth goes through cycles of global warming and cooling on its own. If the cycle continues in the same pattern as it has, there will be an ice age in 500 years give or take (at least thats what some people think).

Saying humans caused GW, is like saying humans caused evolution. We can help it along, but we aren't the starter, nor stopper, and it will continue without us, as it had done without us.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

I was only calling anyone ignorant that bought the popular media's tagline, "We're not quite sure about Global Warming!" There is so much evidence, at this point it's like not believing in Evolution.

There is absolutely no evidence that proves humans have affected the weather. There is only evidence that temperature is rising. If i am right, it cooled in the 80's.

Here's a nifty fact. The sun puts more energy on earth in 1 hour than the human race uses in 1 year. Meaning the sun gives us 8760 X the energy we use. It is proven that the sun is the biggest contributer to our climate. Our effects are minimal. And a single, well aimed sun storm would destroy more atmosphere than we could ever dream of. Who knows how many glancing blows the sun has given us.

There is also a theory that says higher temperatures decreases the solubility of CO2. This would explain why CO2 and temperature would go hand in hand, but the cause would be opposite of the popular consensus.

Originally Posted by ethen

A number of scientists believe that global warming is due to the Sun emitting more heat than its has for a while, which before recently seemed just as speculative as the "its all the humans fault" theory. But now that we know the ice caps on mars are melting, along with ours, I think its safe to say that the sun is indeed playing a very significant, a perhaps primary role to global warming...and maybe not us.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._southpole.htm

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?...ver&ie= UTF-8

What the hell? Did anyone even read this article? I did, and it says that the martian ice caps are seasonal - i.e. they get bigger and smaller every year DUE TO THE ****ing SEASONS! The martian ice-caps' melting (according to your article) has nothing to do with any sort of solar activity at all - it is simply caused by the rotation of mars around the sun.

Don't get too excited champ, that was a mistake on my part. Im guessing you only clicked the first link? If you had clicked the second, you would have found it was a google search that resulted in numerous articles about the rapid melting of the martian ice caps, that of which cannot be explain by seasonal changes. All I did was post the first link, seeing as this is somewhat common knowledge.

Perhaps I should have read the whole thing lol.

[edit]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

page 1:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._011206-1.html

page 2:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._011206-2.html

If you want more, let me know.

Looks like the sun is in the clear over global warming.

They factored in a cycle which solar radiation goes through peaks and troughs of activity over a period of about 11 years.

Writing in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, a journal of Britain's de-facto academy of sciences, the team said that the Sun had been less active since 1985, even though global temperatures have continued to rise.

On the contrary, the fact is that the climate has changed according to the cycles of the sun, as even your article suggests. The mistake here is in assuming that an inverse correlation isnt an acutal correlation. Ironically that article admitted that there was indeed a strong inverse correlation, which damn near proves the sun is at play.

...

oh, and nevermind the fact that Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Mars, Trinton, and our moon are also warming, I suppose that's all just a coincedence, right?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming031307.htm

The search:
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?...+pluto+jupiter