Founder of Greenpeace: No Proof of Global Warming

[Beldaran]

Interesting. (http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html)


Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose...

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

[phattonez]

Global Warming is a lie and we should turn to nuclear power? I think I like this guy, but I'll read the article when I'm not rushing for class.

[rock_nog]

How is it that you're able to see that the global warming debate is a farce, and yet still end up taking a side, Phattonez?

[phattonez]

I didn't get to find the best word to describe it since I had to leave for class. I mean sure, there's probably some truth to it, but I don't feel like there is any way to have enough research to prove that it is happening. There are just way too many variables, especially too many to claim that this is not a natural fluctuation of the Earth. And, from what I've heard, atmospheric temperatures have stabilized in the last 10 years and ocean temperatures have lowered. Arctic ice pack is actually increasing. Global Warming is something that is not being studied by unbiased bodies it seems.

[Starkist]

Prediction: The True Believers, led by Saint Al Gore, will downplay, twist, or outright ignore this position.

You can always tell an open-minded person from a True Believer. The open-minded person will think critically about their own position when they see contrary evidence. The True Believer will either ignore contrary evidence, or somehow spin it around to somehow support their preconceived notions.

Example of a global warming True Believer: "Look at this record-high temperature: Sure evidence of global warming." "Don't be deceived by this record-low temperature: Climate change will produce all sorts of crazy weather."

Another example: In 2005 we had a higher-than-average hurricane season. The True Believers, led by the Chosen One Al Gore, called it prima facie evidence of global warming. In the past two years we have had lower-than-average hurricane seasons. Not a peep from the True Believers. (Hint kids, that is why the word is "average".)

[Beldaran]

Prediction: The True Believers, led by Saint Al Gore, will downplay, twist, or outright ignore this position.

You can always tell an open-minded person from a True Believer. The open-minded person will think critically about their own position when they see contrary evidence. The True Believer will either ignore contrary evidence, or somehow spin it around to somehow support their preconceived notions.

Example of a global warming True Believer: "Look at this record-high temperature: Sure evidence of global warming." "Don't be deceived by this record-low temperature: Climate change will produce all sorts of crazy weather."

Another example: In 2005 we had a higher-than-average hurricane season. The True Believers, led by the Chosen One Al Gore, called it prima facie evidence of global warming. In the past two years we have had lower-than-average hurricane seasons. Not a peep from the True Believers. (Hint kids, that is why the word is "average".)


Yeah people who believe things without skepticism are crazy, aren't they? I mean, how can anyone just accept something on faith? It's very stupid. I totally agree with your assesment of this type of thinking.

[rock_nog]

I see what you did there, Beldaran. And oh, okay Phattonez - you had me worried, because you were speaking the language of the global-warming deniers, who in my view are just as bad and exploitive as the global-warming believers. I find the whole thing to be utterly ridiculous. You have a serious question posed regarding the environmental impact of our activities, and everyone just wants to politicize it.

And I mean, yeah, I understand that it's politicized because of the perceived impact on the economy of something like global warming, but I really think that people aren't being realistic here. I mean, even if global warming is real, we can't just stop using coal and oil tomorrow. That's utterly absurd. Just as absurd, however, are the people who don't believe we need to do something about our dependence on coal and oil, because there are so many other considerations besides whether or not it contributes to global warming. Regardless of global warming, it's still horribly polluting the atmosphere, as anyone who lives in a city knows. Regardless of global warming, we still have to deal with the fact that it's intimately tied to our relationship with the Middle East (really, it'd just be so much better if we could just avoid the region entirely). Regardless of global warming, we still have to face the fact that within the next few decades, and there's a good chance that it'll be sooner rather than later, the price of oil will just become prohibitively expensive.

At any rate, certainly, something's going on with the climate. We've got huge chunks of ice melting at both the North and South poles. It really behooves us to find out why, even if it isn't us who caused it, so we can at least know the extent of what's going on, and hopefully prepare for it and try to minimize the impact. Even if it's natural, it doesn't mean it's not something to be concerned about - remember, earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes are all natural, too.

[phattonez]

Like I said before, the Arctic Ice Pack is growing, but decreasing in certain areas. I wonder where Al Gore is putting his cameras.

I don't completely deny that the Earth is warming up, but I do deny that it is as bad as the environmentalists say it is. They want to go way too far, and CO2 emissions aren't as bad as ozone emissions. That's the real problem. Low level ozone is terrible and no one is speaking out against it. That is the more pressing issue than Global Warming and that is what celebrities and environmentalists SHOULD be speaking out against (this is the going on the basis that celebrities are going to talk no matter what, even though I think that they should just keep their mouths completely shut).

[MottZilla]

Don't worry about it. The real problem is the Earth is suffering from an infestation, of humans. There is a huge population of these critters, and it cannot be sustained, especially with them moving towards western lifestyle habits. This problem is caused by people in poor countries that won't stop fucking and infesting the earth with their spawnlings. Apparently some people think they have the right to pump 20 kids out of their vagina.

But, hopefully a plague or perhaps a war will break out causing massive death in hugely populated areas such as India, China, throw in Africa for good measure. No one has the balls to say it, but that is the solution. While some people want to tell you we need to reduce emissions and use energy more wisely, improve technology, etc... We aren't up for it, certainly not now.

The real solution is the same solution as always. If we suddenly don't have these millions of Chinese and Indians and Africans, the strain on resources will be reduced. Primarily India and China are the problem as they are buying alot of the oil for their growing industrial wastelands. That is probably reason enough to bomb them into the stone age. The planet can't take nations as big as India and China really industrializing like us. So I volunteer them for death.

And global warming, reguardless if it is happening now or not, will result in drastic changes that will fuck us over. Also, the Earth oribital pattern we are in right now should actually be causing the planet to get cooler. We are in a point where the planet gets less energy from the sun. Not like the angle change of summer/winter, but something of a longer time span. So, when the planet should actually be in a cooling spell, we are actually getting warmer... hmm...

And once again the faggots were wrong, violence is the answer.

[phattonez]

MottZilla, like I said before, global temperatures have plateaued, and there is reason to believe that the rise in temperature was mostly due to activity of the sun. There is a real concern about cooling right now, but people don't really know about that.

[rock_nog]

Oh, that'd be priceless, if we suffered Global Cooling. I mean, one of the big things the global warming deniers would trot out to mock the global warming believers was "Oh, but 30 years ago, scientists were all convinced that we're headed toward a new Ice Age." The thing that bothers me about that crowd is that they seem to have this attitude that, not only is climate change not man-made, but that climate change doesn't even happen, and that it's certainly nothing we should concern ourselves with or waste resources on.

[Starkist]

Climate change happens. Remember, when the Vikings discovered a large island in the Arctic Ocean they called it "Greenland". It is covered in ice today. The mean temperature has been rising and falling for thousands of years.

The True Believes and their messiah, Al Gore, believe two things that are absurd: 1) That man has the ability to cause dramatic and dangerous changes to this planet; and 2) That man can halt and reverse the changes that occur.

Both are signs of hubris. When Mt. St. Helens, here in Washington, can cause more damage to the ecosystem than a billion cars, that is a sign that man and his works are nothing to this earth. When that same ecosystem can thrive only twenty-eight years later, that is a sign that this earth is not as fragile as we are taught in grade school.

Like I said, the climate changes on its own. Pre-modern societies learned to adapt. It is only in the last fifty years or so that man has decided that we will try to alter the earth's climate itself to fit our needs, rather than vice-versa. I am more afraid of what Al Gore and his ilk will do to us and to the earth to stop climate change than I am of what the earth will do to us.

The crusade against global warming is an excuse to take away personal freedoms. Seriously. First, they treat science like a religion. The True Believers use propaganda to convert the masses. (An Inconvenient Truth, anyone?) They seek to punish the infidels, comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. They scare people into submission, treating fantasy films like The Day After Tomorrow as a serious warning, and saying that if we DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW!!! then all life on earth will be severely impacted.

Once the world has become True Believers, then government steps in. First it uses incentives, such as tax-breaks for hybrid cars, subsidies for biofuels, etc. After we accept this level of government intervention, then the mandates come. Incandescent light bulbs are being banned. Plastic grocery bags will soon be outlawed. Eventually, having too large a "carbon footprint" will be cause for fines or even worse. (The elites such as the Prophet Al Gore will be exempt, of course.) You will not be allowed to travel where you wish, because of the danger your car poses to the planet.

Most of you will probably say I'm going overboard, but notice that all the things I mentioned are happening now, except the last two. Those are my predictions.

Al Gore and his followers cannot be deterred by facts or logic. They see themselves as on a divine mission to save the earth from the scourge of mankind.

[phattonez]

A lot of those things would be good anyway even without an effect on Global Warming. Being environmentally conscious does not make someone a Global Warming nut.

[rock_nog]

Thank you, Phattonez. Starkist, um... yeah... what's with all the vitriol? I mean, no one here is a global warming "true believer" and yet you keep harping on about it. Just seems a bit random there, like you're trying to raise a controversy when there is none.

[Daarkseid]

Like I said, the climate changes on its own. Pre-modern societies learned to adapt. It is only in the last fifty years or so that man has decided that we will try to alter the earth's climate itself to fit our needs, rather than vice-versa. I am more afraid of what Al Gore and his ilk will do to us and to the earth to stop climate change than I am of what the earth will do to us.

The crusade against global warming is an excuse to take away personal freedoms. Seriously. First, they treat science like a religion. The True Believers use propaganda to convert the masses. (An Inconvenient Truth, anyone?) They seek to punish the infidels, comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. They scare people into submission, treating fantasy films like The Day After Tomorrow as a serious warning, and saying that if we DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW!!! then all life on earth will be severely impacted.

Once the world has become True Believers, then government steps in. First it uses incentives, such as tax-breaks for hybrid cars, subsidies for biofuels, etc. After we accept this level of government intervention, then the mandates come. Incandescent light bulbs are being banned. Plastic grocery bags will soon be outlawed. Eventually, having too large a "carbon footprint" will be cause for fines or even worse. (The elites such as the Prophet Al Gore will be exempt, of course.) You will not be allowed to travel where you wish, because of the danger your car poses to the planet.


Wow, what a bunch of paranoid conspiracy bullshit. Seriously, the end result of global warming advocation is just a ploy to rob America of its liberties?

[phattonez]

Well, it's not the most absurd thing I've ever heard. I mean, I've always thought of the environmental movement as more of an anti-corporate movement, at least that's how it is today.

[Starkist]

Wow, what a bunch of paranoid conspiracy bullshit. Seriously, the end result of global warming advocation is just a ploy to rob America of its liberties?


Most of you will probably say I'm going overboard, but notice that all the things I mentioned are happening now, except the last two. Those are my predictions.

Indeed.

[Beldaran]

I just can't believe Starkist is insulting people for believing in things. Pot has sex with kettle.

[Daarkseid]

And the stated purpose of environmentalism isn't to destroy corporations. Its been largely to acknowledge the impact humans have on our environment and then to promote ways of living that lessen said impact, because we still kind of rely on the earth for living.

Corporations, by their nature of being producers of large levels of pollution(just a natural result of the quantities of material they process in the normal goal of making and selling products), have been pressed upon to clean up their processes. They have, but still more crazy elements of the environmental movement refuse to trust corporations, and continue to agitate against them.

What you've done then is taken the activities and views of a minority within a movement and made them the face of that movement, and are now incorrectly labeling environmentalism as an anti-corporations movement.

Starkist is taking his fucked up slippery slope arguments that fundie psychos enjoy so much and arriving at the insane conclusion that Al Gore and people supporting him are acting out of a desire to destroy American liberty, and not actually doing it out of concern that this global warming period might actually be more permanent and long term because of human activity on earth.

[DarkDragoonX]

I just can't believe Starkist is insulting people for believing in things. Pot has sex with kettle.

Yeah, but it's not the same. Global warming advocates don't blindly believe in the right thing, so it's obviously completely different. :rolleyes:

[phattonez]

You see, that whole post depends on whether or not the anti-corporate viewpoint is a minority, and I'm not so sure that it is.

[Starkist]

Two points:

My beliefs and the beliefs of the global warming True Believers have different effects on society. I have not tried to change laws or human behaviour because of what I believe. Al Gore and his friends want to change laws and human behaviour because of what they believe. See the difference?

I do not necessarily believe that Al Gore and his friends are involved in a grand conspiracy to take away our rights. On the contrary, I am sure they think they are doing some good. As Jonah Goldberg illustrates, however, it is the desire to do good, the desire to make a difference that erodes liberty when government is the tool used to make that difference.

C.S. Lewis once wrote: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Many on this board would agree that no terrorist threat is worth losing any amount of liberty and freedom over. Why then should we give any freedoms away because some people think that we may otherwise harm the earth? Sorry Al, the debate is not over.

[rock_nog]

Starkist, you keep shrieking about Al Gore and his True Believers, but why? I think pretty much everyone here can agree that global warming isn't a certainty. So what are you in such a huff about? It's like you're looking for a fight when there's none to be had. We all pretty much agree that the extremists are complete whack jobs. Granted, you seem to fail to recognize that you're falling into one of the extremist camps yourself, but still, you get the basic idea that global warming is used for exploitive political purposes and that's wrong. Just remember that both sides of the debate do it.

But for the record, I would like to note that personally, I happen to believe that dumping harmful shit into our air and into our water is not a right. Just seems to me that it fits under that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," umbrella.

[Breaker]

so everybody is allowed to share their opinions, however absurd and rediculous, except for Starkist? many have of you have no idea how to participate in discussions. why I wonder do you come to DISCUSSION FORUMS if you're so socially inept. Starkist is sharing his views on the topic and contributing to the thread. He's not attacking any of your ideas, so why can't any of you show him the same courtesy? It's one thing to disagree, but another to act like a jackass and bash him for even posting.

[Beldaran]

so everybody is allowed to share their opinions, however absurd and rediculous, except for Starkist?

He's clearly allowed to express them. We are allowed to point out his blatant hypocrisy


It's one thing to disagree, but another to act like a jackass and bash him for even posting.

This, from Breaker? hah!



I have not tried to change laws or human behaviour because of what I believe.

So you support a woman's right to choose? You support legalized prostitution? Because those are human behaviors that you and your fellow True Believers never cease trying to make illegal.



it is the desire to do good, the desire to make a difference that erodes liberty when government is the tool used to make that difference.

I totally agree! So let's make it illegal to pass fundamentalist christian legislation and end this insane practice of restricting people's behavior in order to please an invisible magic carpenter from anceint Rome.



Why then should we give any freedoms away because some people think that we may otherwise harm the earth?

At least they aren't asking us to give up freedoms because some people think that we may otherwise offend an invisible magic carpenter from ancient Rome who has magical powers and watches us 24 hours a day from his inter-dimensional super-paradise where all the souls of the dead worship him non-stop.


My point is you have no right to criticize global warming advocates because they are far less crazy and dangerous than people with your delusional beliefs.

[Breaker]

how do you manage to change every topic into one about religion?

[Beldaran]

Because when a person is religious, it infects every aspect of their thought; so in an environment where debate occurs, they can't help but be "religious" in their thinking. In this case, there is an ironic hypocrisy in Starkist accusing people of taking something on faith.

It's not that complicated.

[AtmaWeapon]

So... this quest to show us how bad religion is infects every aspect of your thought; in an environment where debate occurs, you can't help but point out how "religious" thinking is wrong. In this case, the ironic hypocrisy is Beldaran stating religious people turn every argument to religion while turning an otherwise non-religious argument into one.

It's not that complicated; Starkist trolled you hard.

[Starkist]

So you support a woman's right to choose? You support legalized prostitution? Because those are human behaviors that you and your fellow True Believers never cease trying to make illegal.

...

I totally agree! So let's make it illegal to pass fundamentalist christian legislation and end this insane practice of restricting people's behavior in order to please an invisible magic carpenter from anceint Rome.

Strawmen. When have you observed me personally pushing for certain laws?

Anyway, I found a weblog post from one of my local (non-conservative) talk radio hosts that illustrates the "tyranny for your own good" argument. Basically, he is outing local government for a quiet study they did to determine the feasibility of tolls that would be paid by every car driver, using GPS to measure how many miles people drive.



The plan, of course, is to make it so expensive for people to drive, they'll be forced to give up their cars. The problem is that many people simply cannot give up their cars.

The environmentalists and Democrats driving this plan always pay lip service to how much they care for the little guy. But there are lots of hard-working, blue-collar middle class people who will be crushed by such a plan. They are contractors and salespeople and craftsmen. Maybe they use a toolbox they can't take on a bus. Or they have sales calls that require a vehicle. Would their families really be able to pay $5000-$10000 a year in tolls?

Source: http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=49261

Any people thought it absurd when I predicted that soon, we would be forced to curtail our travel plans in order to "save the environment". A tax, or toll, is the first step.

Anyway, I don't support wholesale destruction of the environment. I like to save energy and gasoline, if only for the financial benefits. I like the earth. If you knew me personally you would know that I much prefer nature to the city. However, what I do not support is using unproven data, flimsy hypotheses, and the like in order to enact draconian government regulations and restrictions on personal freedom. Global warming is the Trojan Horse for more government control and as a libertarian that worries me.

[rock_nog]

Beldaran did not, in fact, state that religious people turn every argument to religion. The problem here is not religion itself, but what religion represents - blind belief in something. In this case, religion is highly relevant because Starkist's primary argument here revolved around the foolishness of having blind faith. Now, the fact that Starkist himself has blind faith in something does not affect his argument that blind faith is wrong - that would be an ad hominem argument. However, it is still hypocritical to rail against blind faith in one area while simultaneously holding blind faith in another.

[Starkist]

Two points:

As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind". You may at your discretion, however.

Also, I am not accusing the global warming True Believers to be engaging in any kind of blind faith. What I accuse them of is taking something which is based on little evidence, and sometimes no evidence, and calling it proven science. Like I said in my first post, the difference between a critical thinker and the True Believer is that the critical thinker can alter their position based on evidence, while the True Believer clings to their position against all evidence.

Before Beldaran pops in again and says that must mean I'm not a critical thinker when it comes to faith, I remind you again that I am not using my beliefs to impose draconian government control over our lives. Al Gore and the global warming True Believers are doing just that.

[phattonez]

The toll road thing may be completely different. Gas taxes haven't been altered since the 90s (and they do NOT rise with inflation). People won't stand for an increase in the gas tax, so tolls may be the only way to go, with no relation to impact on Global Warming.

[rock_nog]

Your definition of a True Believer sounds a lot like blind faith to me. At least, that's how I would define blind faith - taking a position without evidence and presenting that position as fact, and then clinging to that position no matter what evidence turns up that counters that position.

Furthermore, if the issue is really one of personal rights, you do yourself a disservice by arguing on the grounds that global warming is "made up" or whatever, because if it truly is an issue of personal rights, then then reality of global warming should have no bearing. It's like terrorism - you wouldn't argue that wiretapping, for example, is wrong on the grounds that there are no terrorists. That would be a horrible way to go about it on multiple levels.

[Beldaran]

As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind".

Seeing things that are invisible is not the same as seeing things. It is, however, the same as being crazy.

[Dechipher]

Beldaran, your arguments lack substance. You are as blinded by your extremely dismissive nature ("If I don't believe it, it's wrong") as Starkist is by his faith.

[Beldaran]

You are as blinded by your extremely dismissive nature.

Yep! I am blinded by logic. I dismiss Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Leprechauns, Unicorns, and all other relentless bullshit.


("If I don't believe it, it's wrong")

This is not my attitude at all. My attitude is "If I don't have compelling, irrefutable evidence, then I don't accept something as doctrine."


There is much more evidence for global warming than there is Jesus, and Starkist thinks people are gullible for believing data that is published in scientific journals and supported by 2000 scientists from 150 different countries.

Starkist, who worships an invisible 2000 year old carpenter with magic powers who lives in another dimension and who is best friends with everyone and watches them every second of the day to make sure they don't look at porn and say bad words, thinks people who read climatology journals are gullible.

This is grade A primo bullshit hypocrisy at its best.

[MottZilla]

The True Believes and their messiah, Al Gore, believe two things that are absurd: 1) That man has the ability to cause dramatic and dangerous changes to this planet; and 2) That man can halt and reverse the changes that occur.

Wow I think you're officially fucking stupid. I know Beldaran has been making fun of it for awhile, but this really shows it off. You actually don't believe man can cause dramatic change to the planet. Holy shit. Oh wait sorry, I don't believe in your imaginary friend so... Wow.

[Dechipher]

The problem is that you claim that everything is to be viewed in black and white and hide it under the banner of logic.

I would rather have someone who is open minded enough to concede that they are narrow-minded than someone who claims to have superior beliefs.

[Beldaran]

The problem is that you claim that everything is to be viewed in black and white and hide it under the banner of logic.

I would rather have someone who is open minded enough to concede that they are narrow-minded than someone who claims to have superior beliefs.

For the ten billionth time, my beliefs are not superior, because I have no beliefs whatsoever. A belief is a logical aberration consistent with delusion and psychosis. It assumes knowledge without evidence; a form of insanity.

I cannot concede that thinking rationally might be the wrong way to go, because of the mountains of evidence piled against fanciful delusion as a productive and accurate method of acquiring knowledge about the world.

I don't know why you give delusional fantasy such a wide respect. It's really quite a sad condition that deserves to be sadly chuckled at by those whose brains are free from such errors.

[DarkDragoonX]

Two points:

As my recent posting indicated, I do not consider my faith to be "blind". You may at your discretion, however.

Whether or you you think your faith is blind is completely irrelevant to the reality that faith is blind by definition.


Also, I am not accusing the global warming True Believers to be engaging in any kind of blind faith. What I accuse them of is taking something which is based on little evidence, and sometimes no evidence, and calling it proven science. Like I said in my first post, the difference between a critical thinker and the True Believer is that the critical thinker can alter their position based on evidence, while the True Believer clings to their position against all evidence.

The irony here is so sharp I had to get a band-aid.

Really, so far you haven't put forth much of an argument. Your debate tactic seems to be something along the lines of:

1. Make an object or a group of people seem scary and evil and evil by giving them a label and Using Capitalization. For bonus points, use a label that is laughably ironic when compared with your own belief system.

2. Spout as much pseudo-intellectual rhetoric as you can. Quote a dead guy to make your argument sound smarter. Use sources such as talk show radio programs to back up your statements, because talk show radio hosts are never wrong.

3. Defend your flimsy arguments by hiding behind a wall of fallacies. When anybody challenges your statements, take any tiny logical fallacy they make, then make a long post about how they used a fallacy and they are therefore totally wrong, without ever actually addressing any counterarguments.

4. Be as arrogant and pretentious as possible. Accuse others of not having an open mind, and not applying critical thinking. Because clearly people with open minds and critical thinking skills would immediately agree with everything you say.

Oh, but wait! This is whole post is obviously ad hominem and can thus be dismissed with a wave of the hand. And possibly a long-winded post about why this post is ad hominem, oh and by the way here's another questionable source of information to prove that this group I hate is a bunch of radical jerks and I am obviously not.

[phattonez]

Whether or you you think your faith is blind is completely irrelevant to the reality that faith is blind by definition.

Wow, well I'd like to see that definition of faith. Apparently having faith that my chair won't break when I sit in it is blind.

[rock_nog]

Wow, well I'd like to see that definition of faith. Apparently having faith that my chair won't break when I sit in it is blind.
That's not faith - you have evidence. The chair hasn't broken any other time you sat in it, and it looks sturdy, and so it is safe to assume that the chair won't break. In fact, you would be very foolish to have faith that the chair won't break, as that would cause to to ignore any other mitigating circumstances, like , for instance, in the event that the legs look termite-ridden.

Faith is, quite simply, belief in the absence of evidence. In fact, I would argue that belief even in light of evidence is foolish. For instance, I do not believe that when I wake up tomorrow, gravity will still be working, despite 13 billion years' worth of counterexamples, because no matter how completely we may think we understand gravity, it could always change tomorrow. Pragmatically, I make the assumption that gravity will still be working tomorrow, because honestly, even if it were to fail, it's not like there's anything I could do about it, and being that in my experience it hasn't, it's not worth worrying over, but this is not belief, this is a pragmatic conclusion based on prior observations.

[DarkDragoonX]

Believing that your chair won't break when you sit in it isn't faith. You believe it won't break because it's a well-made object specifically created to sit in. You have a logical, fully supportable reason to think the chair won't break.

Faith is essentially the belief in something, anything, without any hard evidence to back it up. People who believe in god, leprechauns, aliens, ghosts, etc, are all operating on faith. If you have no information about the stock market yet firmly believe that Nasdaq will go up by fifty points tomorrow, you're operating on faith. It's blind. You have no real hard evidence to prove that what you believe is true, but you choose to believe it anyway.

Now, at this point I'm going to say that I didn't rush off to my Webster's to look up the definition. And yes, you could probably go to some internet dictionary and run back with a hyperlink and a triumphant look in your eyes shouting "HA, that is NOT what faith means, see?" Well, I'd argue that most of the time, the word "faith" is used exactly the way I described it. So, if it makes you feel better, you can think of my definition of "faith" as definition 8c.

And before you think about getting into a debate over that, I'm going to curtail the argument right now, as well as earn some extra Insufferably Smug Bastard points, by declaring that I have faith that my definition is reasonably accurate and perfectly appropriate, so let's end the nitpicking game right here and move along.

[phattonez]

You people have a screwed up definition of faith. Here's the number one definition from dictionary.com

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Here's number one from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Any questions?

[Starkist]

Wow I think you're officially fucking stupid. I know Beldaran has been making fun of it for awhile, but this really shows it off. You actually don't believe man can cause dramatic change to the planet. Holy shit. Oh wait sorry, I don't believe in your imaginary friend so... Wow.

Show me evidence or shut up. Acting like I'm stupid for what I said, but not providing any evidence is the mark of one who is too insecure to even debate the point.

[erm2003]

Come on guys. Smog clouds over cities were created by the devil, not by the emissions from cars or factories that were made by man. Didn't you know that?

[Starkist]

If it was an obvious fact that man was causing climate change, why the need for deceptive propaganda? There are numerous sites that detail the factual errors in An Inconvenient Truth. There were highly publicized stories of icecaps melting but when they came back even stronger, it's barely news. Climate change believers continually repeat facts and figures from discredited climate models, even as new ones show other evidence. If it was so obvious, why the need to shout down skeptics, call them "deniers" and try and censor them? If the argument is airtight, then it need fear no debate. Yet the global warming True Believers brook no debate; they claim the debate is over and scientists have reached a consensus.

Science is not a democracy.

[rock_nog]

Phattonez, just because it's the first definition does not automatically make it the most applicable to the situation. The faith that you have in your chair is not the same as the faith that global warming believers have in global warming or the faith that Christians have in God. In fact, let's trot out definitions 2 and 3 from dictionary.com, because they both seem fairly applicable to the topic at hand.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

EDIT: Whoa, this thread is rapidly spiraling out of control. We've got arguments about religion going on, we've got arguments about the definition of faith, and we've got Starkist in the corner apparently arguing with himself, because I still have yet to see anyone actually come out and say "Global warming is an undisputed fact," though I will say I find Starkist's methods questionable at best.

[phattonez]

Definition 2 looks strikingly similar to number 1. Either way, I have shown that faith need not be blind.

[Beldaran]

Show me evidence or shut up.

How about you shutup and go read something besides a game forum. Scientists have been publishing peer reviewed papers on global warming for over a decade. If you think there is "no evidence" for global warming, your head is stuffed up your ass.

[rock_nog]

Definition 2 looks strikingly similar to number 1. Either way, I have shown that faith need not be blind.
Phattonez, you are absolutely incorrigible. The kind of faith you're talking about is an entirely different concept than the kind of faith we're talking about. In the context of this discussion, faith IS always blind. You're just arguing semantics.

[Starkist]

How about you shutup and go read something besides a game forum. Scientists have been publishing peer reviewed papers on global warming for over a decade. If you think there is "no evidence" for global warming, your head is stuffed up your ass.

You didn't read my last post, did you? You think yourself a champion of logic, but you're only willing to debate those statements you pick yourself. Like a carnivore culling the sick and weak, you ignore the strongest arguments.

Anyway, for every paper warning of man-made climate change, there is one showing how it is not man-made. Of course, scientific funding is not allocated to those who say "Let's do nothing" so guess who gets the attention, guess who gets past the peer-review gatekeepers?

Look at the original post in this topic, for crying out loud.

[Beldaran]

"Peer-review gatekeepers" is the conspiracy theory for people who feel it's unfair that imaginative crap isn't printed next to real information.

[rock_nog]

If I may just throw out just a tiny bit of actual evidence into... whatever it is we're all talking about, whatever global warming is or isn't, it looks like the solar activity theory is a bust. Sunspot activity is a useful measure of solar activity - however, as demonstrated by this graph, the data does not explain the recent increase in global temperatures.

http://www.quaker.org/clq/2007/aux/Temp%26SolarActivity.png

[phattonez]

That graph might change depending on where you take your temperature data from.

[erm2003]

The Global Mean Temperature will change if you are in a different location?

[phattonez]

There are a few different ways to measure global temperatures. You could average all of the world temperatures, get temperatures from the atmosphere (I think the troposphere is used the most), temperatures from the ocean, etc. Using different locations gets you different information.

[rock_nog]

So, are you calling into question the very notion that global temperatures are rising at all?

[phattonez]

That's not what I was implying at all, as I'm nowhere near qualified enough to make that call. I was merely saying that data can be taken from different places, and those places will give you different information.

[Dechipher]

I would just like to point out that Al Gore is not a scientist, and we can't base our opinions of global warming off of a movie.

I havne't seen An Inconvenient Truth, but it just seems silly to believe or disbelieve something because of a movie. Might as well become a Christian after you watch The Passion of the Christ.

And Beldaran, I'm not sure who you can claim that you don't believe you are superior, while simultaneously talking down on anyone who has any sort of belief whatsoever.
The reason I give any respect to the notion of any sort of external power is simply because of it's universal qualities. While the system in America is pretty fucked up, you can go anywhere and they have religion. It's an aspect of humanity, whether or not you identify with it. Additionally, religion can mean a lot of different stuff to a lot of different people. So I can't just blithely disregard something because it's not what I believe.

[Masamune]

It sure is getting warmer early this year.

[Beldaran]

So I can't just blithely disregard something because it's not what I believe.

Since I am intelligent, I am able to blithely disregard things that have no basis in reality.

[rock_nog]

I get what you're saying, Phattonez, but honestly, the only truly relevant data in that graph was the sunspot activity. There has been no sudden rise in sunspot activity in recent decades, which means that there has been no sudden rise in solar activity (it's involved, and I don't really want to get into it, but basically, yeah, sunspot activity is used as a measure of overall solar activity). And in fact, from the period of roughly 1980 to 2000, sunspot activity has decreased.

From this, we cannot conclude that global warming is man-made, by any means. However, if we accept the premise that over recent decades, global temperatures have been rising, we can safely conclude that it is not the result of solar activity. And this folks, this is how science works. You work through process of elimination. In this case, you note that temperatures have been rising, and you work out a list of possible causes. Then you examine the evidence, and through process of elimination, slowly work your way to the most probable cause.

[AtmaWeapon]

My stance is neutral on global warming, but I do not think it's as bad as those on the polarized "we're doomed" side think. Here's my deal. (I'm not looking up sources to back up anything as it's tough to find objective reports and I'm not spending an hour on this thread. Anything marked with a * is something I feel like I read from a reputable source but if you can cite something that refutes it then have at it, but realize I'm not presenting anything as a rock-solid point here.)

First, there's no reason we shouldn't be taking measures to reduce the amount of pollution we're generating and practice energy conservation. Whether or not we can prove we're affecting the planet in a negative way, making our air and water dirtier while removing important parts of the ecosystem such as the rainforests is obviously a bad idea. When I don't have to dramatically change my lifestyle to do something green, I do it. I'm using CF bulbs (and thus introducing harmful chemicals into landfills while using less electricity), I try to use stores clustered together to reduce the amount of time I spend driving, I don't drive a giant semi truck disguised as a family vehicle, etc. Still, I refuse to set my thermostat to something uncomfortable, and I'm going to take a deep, hot bath every night.

As to whether we're deep in a hole and the ice caps are going to melt and we're all doomed, I'm not so sure. We have evidence that the planet goes through cycles of climate change: there's been an ice age and supposedly temperate periods in the past were quite warmer than we're used to*. We've observed climate change over maybe 200 years*, but honestly we've only been concerned about global warming for 30 years or so* so that's the only detailed data we have. If we assume that young-Earth creationists are right and the Earth is 6,000 or so years old, that means we're making definite predictions with data that only covers either 3% (200 years) or 0.5% (30 years) of the Earth's lifetime. This is the choice that is favorable to global warming science. If we decide that we're not going to ignore tons of geological evidence, we use Wikipedia to age the Earth at 4.54 billion years. This means we're basing our global warming predictions on detailed observations of climate spanning .0000044% (200 years) or 0.00000066% (30 years) of the Earth's history**. That's like trying to figure out what a 70-year-old person has done with their live by observing 14 seconds of their life. To me, it's preposterous to say we have enough data to definitively prove that the Earth's climate change is our fault. If I'm not allowed to believe in a deity based on thousands of years of word-of-mouth evidence, I fail to see why it's just fine for science to believe that a data set with coverage that doesn't even approach a percent of a percent of a percent is a definitive source of reasonable information.

Still, I think it's stupid to carry on as we have for the next few hundred years until we have a significant amount of data gathered. We might be the cause, and it's worth doing anything we can to mitigate the risk. Part of the problem is the planet's climate is so complicated we still don't know what causes all of the patterns we see. So we could be wrong that this or that affects the climate at all.

So, in summary, I think Al Gore and his Gorons are a bunch of cultists following fearless leader all the way to the bookstore and the bank. I'm not under the impression that we're in danger of a severe climate change. But I do think that moderate conservationism is a good goal. If we all do little things we can hopefully stall any problems we're causing until we can at least prove we're the reason why it's happening.

**The correctness of these numbers is somewhat dubious; the results had exponents of -7 and -9; I assumed adding 2 to account for percentage then 1 to move the decimal to a normalized position meant I could put the remaining number of zeroes into the number. I didn't feel like putting any more effort than that into it. Sue me.

[Daarkseid]

Just posting to say I agree with what Atma said.

While science does have a huge consensus going and a pile of data to back up the possibility of human affected global warming trends, the fact much of its only been collected in the past 50 years and average temperature readings only seem to go back a century, I'm skeptical as to whether or not a definitive conclusion could be made.

That all said, I'm also worried that even if this is only part of a natural warming cycle, we might still be affecting the severity of it. Which is why Atma's "moderate conservationism" is a good idea. Actually, its a good idea regardless, but doing so isn't going to affect our way of life dramatically and might in the long run be helpful if scientific data and climate trends continue as they are.

[MottZilla]

Reguardless of if we are causing it, you can't deny that we can cause it. Humans are very capable of causing dramatic changes to the planet. Just look at that nice heap of plastic trash in the ocean that wasn't there 50 years ago.

Using energy more wisely and reducing waste and pollution shouldn't have to be driven by the threat of disaster. But they pretty much have to be because of how people behave.

[rock_nog]

Reguardless of if we are causing it, you can't deny that we can cause it. Humans are very capable of causing dramatic changes to the planet. Just look at that nice heap of plastic trash in the ocean that wasn't there 50 years ago.

Using energy more wisely and reducing waste and pollution shouldn't have to be driven by the threat of disaster. But they pretty much have to be because of how people behave.
Heh, makes me think of seatbelt laws. I mean, seatbelts should be a no-brainer. And yet, there are people out there whose only motivation to wear one is to avoid getting a ticket. Utterly baffling, how the human mind works sometimes.

[Starkist]

Reguardless of if we are causing it, you can't deny that we can cause it. Humans are very capable of causing dramatic changes to the planet. Just look at that nice heap of plastic trash in the ocean that wasn't there 50 years ago.

Using energy more wisely and reducing waste and pollution shouldn't have to be driven by the threat of disaster. But they pretty much have to be because of how people behave.

Do you have any evidence that humanity has the ability to change the earth's climate, besides trash in the ocean? That seems rather spurious. In any case, your view is basically what the True Believer ideology comes down to: Scare people into change.

I've said before that I am in favor of conservation. What I am not in favor of is government intervening in every area of our society.



Heh, makes me think of seatbelt laws. I mean, seatbelts should be a no-brainer. And yet, there are people out there whose only motivation to wear one is to avoid getting a ticket. Utterly baffling, how the human mind works sometimes.

That is the difference between a libertarian and someone else. I hate the seatbelt laws, they represent one of the many intrusions of government in our lives. I wear my seatbelt. But if someone else does not wish to do so, they are only harming themselves.

[rock_nog]

I've got evidence that we can change the planet - look at our nuclear stockpiles. We could, literally, with the press of a button, send this planet back into the ice age.

Anyway, I feel that government has to intervene in conservation, because in that area, what someone else does affects me. Your rights end where mine begin.

[Beldaran]

Do you have any evidence that humanity has the ability to change the earth's climate, besides trash in the ocean?

In this edition of AGN, Starkist increases his capacity for fantasy and pretends that chemistry is a bunch of lies! Because CO2 has been CLEARLY SHOWN to be a greenhouse gas that traps heat energy in our atmosphere. And we produce millions (or billions?) of tons of CO2 every year.

[AlphaDawg]

While it is true our nuclear stockpiles could obliterate all man-made infrastructure and most of the species alive today, the Earth itself would be fine. The Earth recovered quite nicely from the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, did it not? Prior to that, it also recovered from the asteroid that created the Moon, did it not?

Is it any coincidence that most of these "climate change" alarmists are atheists who believe in no power greater than themselves? Perhaps that's why they believe we can cause "climate change." I put that in quotation marks because it used to be "global warming" until global temperatures started to trend downward recently. Whatever is happening to the Earth's temperature, we must be causing it somehow, so sayeth the alarmists.

Think of the last time you were in an airplane. If you had a window seat, I'll bet you a Philly cheesesteak you couldn't resist looking out. You probably saw nothing but beautiful blue sky and clouds everywhere. Do you honestly think anything we are capable of could mess that up?

In 1991 Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#1991_awakening). Global temperatures decreased 0.7°F as a result of that one event! We've been pumping CO2 (which is NOT a "pollutant," btw... last I checked we do exhale it) into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and we've only managed to raise global temperature by about 1-1.5°F! (I am of course assuming everything Algore and company are claiming is 100% accurate in that statement.)

[rock_nog]

He asked if there was evidence that we could alter the climate, not whether we could blow up the Earth. No, of course the Earth will keep going on after we blow ourselves out, that's not the point. The point is that, in the process, we would create a major climate change. How did we leap from talking about climate change to global annihilation?

But what I don't get is, why are we talking about Al Gore? It seems irrelevant to me, when nobody here is being dogmatic about the issue.

[Beldaran]

Alpha, the fear is not that altering the climate will destroy the earth. The fear is that altering the climate will lead to a billion deaths and the collapse of the economy. The earth will be just fine. Her human stewards, however, could be at risk of polluting themselves out of existence as we know it.

[AlphaDawg]

The point I was trying to make was that I don't think humans are capable of changing the climate, for better or for worse (whatever that is supposed to mean anyway). That's all. We must adapt to whatever changes the Earth presents us with.

I brought up the airplane analogy to illustrate that, while cruising only a few miles above the Earth's surface, you often see no evidence we even exist! That's how small of a footprint we've created.

I brought up Mount Pinatubo to illustrate how much change a relatively minor event in Earth's geological history can cause, and how little change 200+ years of human activity can supposedly cause.

[rock_nog]

Like I said, our nuclear stockpiles are more than adequate for causing a major global climate change. The point still stands.

[AlphaDawg]

If our nuclear stockpiles were to suddenly become, uh, exhausted, any climate change that may occur would be the least of our problems. Maybe we can have the cockroaches that would survive the nuclear holocaust brief us on what happened while we were holed up in the nuclear bunker. :tongue:

[rock_nog]

That's not the point - the point is, we have the technological capability to alter the climate on a global scale.

[AlphaDawg]

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think using nukes would have any long-term effects on the Earth's climate. We don't exactly have any empirical evidence to either prove or disprove it, so I guess it's something we'll just have to agree to disagree on. And like I said before, should the nuclear holocaust come, we can ask the cockroaches what happened once we emerge from the bunker!

So would I be correct in assuming you believe lots of coal-burning power plants, Boeing 747's and Hummer H2's are capable of altering the climate as well? Also don't forget all the CO2 that's released when all of us exhale! If so, what do you think we should do about it?

[rock_nog]

I don't believe that - that would be absurd. Based on what? There isn't enough evidence. I will admit there's enough evidence to support the possibility that those things do affect the climate, and as a fan of chaos theory, I must say that a complex, dynamic system such as our global weather system is almost certainly affected by small changes in unpredictable ways.

I'm just trying to logically consider this. I don't really have a side in the whole matter, as I have made clear many, many times before. I think both groups, the believers and the deniers, are either dogmatic nutjobs or manipulative bastards out to exploit the situation. I just want to stick to the science, I don't give a crap about the political implications.

[Feasul]

I brought up the airplane analogy to illustrate that, while cruising only a few miles above the Earth's surface, you often see no evidence we even exist!

Unless it's at night, when you can clearly see the Earth lit up by human activity from space. (Barring cloud cover, of course.)

Also, just because a chemical is naturally produced by our bodies doesn't mean it's not extremely harmful in large quantities. We fart out methane and sulfides, you gonna say those don't pollute?
I don't know exactly how much CO2 we exhale, but probably not as much as fossil-fuel-burning machines. Most of our breath, inhaling and exhaling, is nitrogen anyway. Also, it would be impossible for us to stop exhaling CO2 no matter how long we tried to weane ourselves off of it. We actually are capable of drastically reducing our artificial CO2 emissions, and it's not like doing so will hurt the environment, so I don't see why not.

Also, to reiterate one point, I don't think anybody except some animist sects of environmetalism really cares about damaging the Earth for Earth's sake. Most environmentalists are environmetalists because they care about what'll happen to people if we "damage" the environment. (I put "damage" in quotes because the very concept of environmental damage is relative to how it affects people and other currently living things. I don't think the Earth itself cares one way or the other, as it's not alive.)

[Dechipher]

Regardless of whether humans can change the climate doesn't matter. Sometimes you need to tell stupid people shit like that to get them to pick up after themselves. The rest of us can figure things out for ourselves.

[Starkist]

All this talk about nuclear weapons messing up the earth long-term is nonsense, I think. I brought up Mt. St. Helens earlier. It was a truly massive volcanic eruption, more powerful than 27,000 nuclear weapons exploding simultaneously. (According to Wikipedia.) It will have been twenty-eight years, next month, and the ecosystem is thriving there again. I've been there, I've seen it!

The earth will survive. It is humanity that must adapt to the earth. The climate has varied throughout earth's history. It is only now that people seem to think that we must hold it static the way it is now.

[rock_nog]

Here's a peer-reviewed journal article on the possibility of nuclear winter.

http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Egera/nwinter/nw6accepted.pdf

I swear to God, I'm beginning to hate people like Al Gore. I mean, thanks to people like him, we can't just sit down and have a grown-up conversation about global warming, because both sides feel like they have something to prove. This is what happens when you politicize science. I mean, I don't care about the political implications of global warming, but it's impossible to talk about it without people on both sides spazzing out. Either my skepticism is endangering the planet, or my open-mindedness is a threat to our freedom.

[AlphaDawg]

Unless it's at night, when you can clearly see the Earth lit up by human activity from space. (Barring cloud cover, of course.)Obv! That's why I said blue skies! Occasionally you can look down and see little specks of humanity, but that's about it.


Also, just because a chemical is naturally produced by our bodies doesn't mean it's not extremely harmful in large quantities. We fart out methane and sulfides, you gonna say those don't pollute?Farts may stink (not mine of course... :tongue:), and they may indeed be harmful in large quantities, but I don't consider them polluting.


I don't know exactly how much CO2 we exhale, but probably not as much as fossil-fuel-burning machines. Most of our breath, inhaling and exhaling, is nitrogen anyway. Also, it would be impossible for us to stop exhaling CO2 no matter how long we tried to weane ourselves off of it. We actually are capable of drastically reducing our artificial CO2 emissions, and it's not like doing so will hurt the environment, so I don't see why not.The problem is every solution suggested so far (Kyoto Protocol, anybody?) will cripple our economy and may not even do much to lower emissions.


I swear to God, I'm beginning to hate people like Al Gore. I mean, thanks to people like him, we can't just sit down and have a grown-up conversation about global warming, because both sides feel like they have something to prove. This is what happens when you politicize science. I mean, I don't care about the political implications of global warming, but it's impossible to talk about it without people on both sides spazzing out. Either my skepticism is endangering the planet, or my open-mindedness is a threat to our freedom.That's the problem with politics in general. Politicians aren't capable of speaking to us like adults.

[rock_nog]

So, if I'm understanding you right, AlphaDawg, even if global warming is real, and a man-made threat, the proposed solutions are simply unfeasible? Sorry, I just want to be clear here, because it seems to me that many global warming deniers argue against global warming simply because of the potential political implications. You know, you never see anyone say, "Look, we probably caused global warming. Unfortunately, realistically, there's just not a whole lot we can do at this point - we're screwed."

Not that I'm saying one way or the other on whether or not we actually caused global warming, or one way or the other on whether or not trying curtail it is simply economically unfeasible, but I am open to the possibility that it's simply impractical to do much at this point.

[AlphaDawg]

OK, let me try to sum up my beliefs in one post:


The Earth's climate may in fact be warming. Therefore, do not lump me in with the global warming deniers, which is a loaded term meant to equate global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

No, we didn't cause it, because we are not able to. Call me an anthropogenic global warming skeptic if you must.

Who's to say a little warming is a bad thing?

The Earth's climate has changed dramatically throughout its history, as I'm sure you know. There have been Little Ice Ages (such as the one during the first half of the last millennium), Big Ice Ages (circa 25,000 years ago), and warming periods that would make this one pale in comparison. Recall earlier in this thread when Starkist noted the Vikings discovered "Greenland," which at the time was not the massive ice sheet it is now.

Proposed "solutions" to this non-existent problem will do nothing but cripple our economy. The Kyoto Protocol called for CO2 emissions to return to their 1990 levels. What exactly would that result in?

I do not oppose voluntary conservation. In fact, I encourage it!

Modern environmentalism is nothing but a refuge for displaced socialists and communists.
Hope that clears things up.

[rock_nog]

No no, I'm just asking, what is your stance, if it turned out that global warming is, in fact, anthropogenic? What would you suggest we do? I simply ask because, looking at the situation, there is reason to believe that it wouldn't be feasible to quickly change anything even if that were the case.

At any rate, do you have any evidence to back up your claims that we cannot affect the environment? Because this thread has really got me digging deep, and what I've read so far certainly seems to imply the possibility, at least, that we can, in fact, affect the environment. Of course, there are still certain unanswered questions, like how much can we affect the environment, and how severe of an impact it would make if the Earth's temperature did go up by a few degrees. I'm not saying it's a certainty that we can influence the climate, but I've seen nothing that contradicts the idea.

I certainly understand that the Earth's climate does, in fact, fluctuate, and in fact, that's been part of what I've been looking into. Specifically, I've been researching the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed. Now, the interesting thing to note is that apparently, the Medieval Warm period may have been a localized phenomenon, and that globally, temperatures were actually cooler.

The thing that interests me most about the previous climate changes is that there are mechanisms to explain those climate changes. With our current warming trends, however, so far the only plausible mechanism appears to be an increase in greenhouse gases.

As I've said, I'm only really interested in this from a scientific perspective, but I've got to say, so far, while there's nothing to prove anthropogenic global warming, there's certainly evidence that it is a possibility.

Oh, and one last thing - regarding the term "deniers." To be fair, I had not thought of the connection to Holocaust deniers when I thought up the term. However, it is, in fact, meant to be insulting, as I'm describing people who irrationally cling to the notion that global warming, or anthropogenic global warming, is a complete fabrication. They are just as insane and irrational as Al Gore's True Believers, and deserve an equally degrading title. If you have doubts about global warming, I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but on the other hand, it's not enough to simply have doubts - I'm talking about the people who, with absolutely no evidence, go around proclaiming it to be a fraud. Especially after going through some of the evidence, it is absolutely absurd for anyone on either side to claim they know for sure.

[AlphaDawg]

If it turns out global warming is anthropogenic, I suggest we do nothing, as I'm not sold on a little warming being a bad thing. Who's to say the Earth's climate, right now or at any time in our history, is the ideal climate? I don't buy any of Algore's doomsday scenarios.

(Sometimes I think the only reason Hollyweird lefties are concerned about global warming is because a rise in sea level would wipe out their beachfront houses in Malibu.)

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV or these forums, so I personally have no definitive proof we cannot alter the environment. However, may I suggest you broaden your Google search a bit, as the scientific community is far from unanimous on this.

I stand by my belief that the term "global warming deniers" is a loaded and insulting term. Nobody's beliefs, no matter how irrational they may be, deserve to be compared to those who deny the slaughter of millions of people. Calling someone on the other side of the debate a "true believer" doesn't come close.

[Beldaran]

as I'm not sold on a little warming being a bad thing.

You ought to research this more. (I mean that in a amicable way. I'm not trying to be an ass.)

The problem with global warming is not that it will be 2 degrees warmer in Philly. The problem is that it will be 3-4 degrees warmer in the arctic circle, causing massive glaciers to melt and raise the water levels. Imagine 1/2 of Florida underwater. (pretend this is a bad thing, just for arguments sake.) Southeast Asia underwater. Imagine 50 million people starving to death because of crops that are no longer adapted to shifting climates.

The economic and humanitarian implications of this scenario are truly astounding and will definitely be felt at home.

Facts that are not up for debate:

1) C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases produce a greenhouse effect on the earth. This has been directly observed, verified with both theoretical and experimental calculations. It is not debatable by rational people.

2) Humans produce a LOT of C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases. This has been directly observed and calculated. It is not debatable by rational people.

Facts that ARE up for debate:

1) Humans produce enough greenhouse gases to affect the global climate.

This is a problem that can be solved with scientific data. Currently, there is not a scientific consensus. However, the scientific community is leaning HEAVILY towards the probability that we produce enough greenhouse gases to seriously damage our ecosystem. Once more data becomes available, this question will probably answered.

The question is, will it be too late?

I have probably rehashed many points in this thread and said several completely redundant things. There were a couple of recent posts I did not read out of haste (I have school in a few minutes), but I wanted to respond to that one statement by Alpha.

[rock_nog]

Like I said, that connection hadn't occurred to me when I came up with that title.

Well, obviously the scientific community is not unanimous, but my point is that it's definitely a possibility. Thus far, in my research, I have only seen arguments that there is no evidence, not that it's impossible - at least by anyone credible. I have seen a few attempts to argue that anthropogenic global warming is physically impossible, but honestly, they were usually just unsupported speculation, and often misunderstood certain scientific concepts.

In other words, the concept of anthropogenic global warming is scientifically sound. What's really up for debate is how much of an impact it actually has, and that's just one of those "We'll have to wait and see" situations, because no amount of number crunching, no amount of simulation, can ever take every variable into account. There's always a chance that there's something we missed.

EDIT: Though Beldaran is right, that the number crunching and simulation running we've done so far does lean toward the notion that yes, it's likely.

[AlphaDawg]

The problem with global warming is not that it will be 2 degrees warmer in Philly. The problem is that it will be 3-4 degrees warmer in the arctic circle, causing massive glaciers to melt and raise the water levels. Imagine 1/2 of Florida underwater. (pretend this is a bad thing, just for arguments sake.) Southeast Asia underwater. Imagine 50 million people starving to death because of crops that are no longer adapted to shifting climates.These changes would not happen overnight as seen in schlock like The Day After Tomorrow. Necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure we'd be able to figure something out in time. Most of Holland is below sea level. They built dikes to keep the water out. Most of New Orleans is below sea level. They built levees to... eh, let's stay away from that one...


1) C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases produce a greenhouse effect on the earth. This has been directly observed, verified with both theoretical and experimental calculations. It is not debatable by rational people.Agreed. Anybody who doubts this should take a look at the planet Venus.


2) Humans produce a LOT of C02, Methane, and other such hydro-carbon gases. This has been directly observed and calculated. It is not debatable by rational people.Agreed. My only contention is when people call CO2 a "pollutant." How can something we exhale be considered a "pollutant?"


1) Humans produce enough greenhouse gases to affect the global climate.This is probably our only disagreement.


Like I said, that connection hadn't occurred to me when I came up with that title.I realize that. You're not the first one to use the term "global warming deniers." Those who have, such as Algore, High Priest of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, undoubtedly wish to make that connection.


EDIT: Though Beldaran is right, that the number crunching and simulation running we've done so far does lean toward the notion that yes, it's likely.Just remember, when it comes to climate models, garbage in... garbage out. For some strange reason I doubt the validity of temperature readings from 200 or even 100 years ago. I also doubt the ability of these models to predict the climate 50 years from now accurately when they can't even predict the weather 5 days from now with any accuracy.

[rock_nog]

As I pointed out, even the best model has flaws, but it's all we really have to go on in terms of concrete data, short of just waiting and seeing. I wouldn't just dismiss the concept off-hand, though. It's easier to model long-term climate change than it is short-term weather patterns because things tend to average out over the long term - I mean, I can't predict what the temperature will be on July 17th, but I can say with a fair amount of confidence that it's probably going to be hot.

And yes, of course humans will adapt, but in the meantime, it'll result in a huge blow to the economy. Only in the most extreme of scenarios is anyone talking about the end of humanity or anything. The concern is over how adapting to the upcoming changes will affect people's lives and livelihoods. I mean, look at the Little Ice Age. Nowhere near being a threat to humanity or anything - nonetheless, it did make life incredibly hard for a lot of people, and resulted in quite a few deaths. And that, too, was only a minor change in temperature, by the way.

[Pineconn]

I just want to mention that I had to write an academic essay on global warming in AP English Language today. This thread helped me out a lot. :)

[Feasul]

These changes would not happen overnight as seen in schlock like The Day After Tomorrow.
Wait, there are people who take The Day After Tomorrow seriously as evidence of how global warming works? I suppose that really shouldn't surprise me, but sometimes even I'm still surprised by how dumb people can get. I mean, I understand someone taking Inconvenient Truth as actually being truth. It's a bit careless, after all you should never take one source to be all that reliable, but at least it's a documentary, rather than an action movie.
Next thing you know, people will start taking movies/books like The DaVinci Code and Harry Potter as serious attacks against their beliefs. Pff, like that'll ever happen.

[Beldaran]

This is probably our only disagreement.

We don't necessarily disagree. I want to make clear that the answer to whether we produce enough greenhouse gases to affect climate is not conclusive. I'm just making the argument that by the time we find out the answer, we may have already done the damage.

It's all highly open to speculation and research though; it's not nearly ( or even at all) as concrete as Al Gore wants us to think. He's definitely playing an angle here.

[phattonez]

Wait, there are people who take The Day After Tomorrow seriously as evidence of how global warming works? I suppose that really shouldn't surprise me, but sometimes even I'm still surprised by how dumb people can get. I mean, I understand someone taking Inconvenient Truth as actually being truth. It's a bit careless, after all you should never take one source to be all that reliable, but at least it's a documentary, rather than an action movie.


Reminds me of my cousin's friend after she saw Fahrenheit 9/11. "Bush is a moron." Because we all know that Michael Moore is the end all be all of truth.

[Feasul]

But even that's understandable, albeit naive and kinda stupid. But taking The Day After Tomorrow seriously, that strikes me as similar to watching Terminator 3 and worrying about Skynet taking over the world.

[phattonez]

If that's understandable then so is The Day After Tomorrow. It's supposed to be an apocalyptic prediction, or for the Global Warming crowd, the definite future. There wouldn't really be a difference between Moore's Movies and TDAT.

[rock_nog]

No it isn't - the Day After Tomorrow was never presented as even remotely realistic. It was an action movie, and presented as such. At least if anyone took Fahrenheit 9/11 seriously, they have the excuse that it was presented as a serious documentary.

[phattonez]

Wow, you're letting your views on Bush get in the way of truth. IMDB classifies it as a documentary. If you don't trush IMDB, maybe you should look at the website for An Inconvenient Truth. http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[DarkDragoonX]

Micheal Moore is just a liberal version of people like Rush Limbaugh... radical, rhetoric-spouting dipshits that only complete morons even pay attention to.

[rock_nog]

WTF? Where on IMDB does it classify it as a documentary?

[Feasul]

Wow, you're letting your views on Bush get in the way of truth. IMDB classifies it as a documentary. If you don't trush IMDB, maybe you should look at the website for An Inconvenient Truth. http://www.climatecrisis.net/

First, we're talking about TDAT, not An Inconvenient Truth. Second, just because we say that we'd understand someone believing An Inconvenient Truth or Farenheit 9/11 does not mean we believe them. I'd be just as understanding of someone who believes Expelled, even though I think that movie's a fraud. TDAT is not presented as a documentary. It's an action movie, complete with CGI scenes of New York being flooded and a fictitious Vice President who looks suspiciously like Cheney.

[phattonez]

Well hell I just don't know the difference anymore, the two pretty much just merged in my mind. Either way, The Day After Tomorrow is seen by many as a definite view of our future if we do not change.

[Feasul]

I know they do, and it baffles my mind. It kinda makes me think way back to Reefer Madness. I just don't understand that kind of thinking. I mean, charts and graphs are persuasive, even if they're misleading, I get that. I just don't get people being persuaded by actors in work intended to be fiction. *sigh* Ah well, I guess some people are just dumb.

[The_Amaster]

And remember: Soylent Green is people! :)


(EDIT: Okay, this is more on topic than it seems. If anyones really confuse,d just say so)

[Daarkseid]

Either way, The Day After Tomorrow is seen by many as a definite view of our future if we do not change.

Yeah, by retards maybe.

[rock_nog]

Okay, now this is just getting absurd. We're discussing movies that complete morons take seriously. I'll bet there are some people who believe we can clone dinosaurs based on Jurassic Park, too. Nobody that stupid is worth talking about.

[Breaker]

Either way, The Day After Tomorrow is seen by many as a definite view of our future if we do not change.

No, it's not.

[phattonez]

You really don't think that ignorant, misinformed people are led to believe that this is the definite future? Well you must be lucky to not be around people who are stupid enough to believe movies at face value.

[rock_nog]

Is it really any different than the Da Vinci Code? You can't help what idiots think, but anyone with a quarter of a brain's gonna figure out that real life isn't like that.

[phattonez]

I think it's a little bit different in this case in that what people keep getting fed is scare-tactics and armageddon scenarios. This movie isn't far from what some Global Warming people are spreading around.

[rock_nog]

So wait... What, exactly, was the point of this whole TDAD tangent? Which, honestly, I really feel serves the anti-global-warming side just as much as it does the pro-global-warming side. I mean, think about it - to make global warming look like a silly concept, all you have to do is point at TDAD and say "Look, global warming people are all crazy - they believe this is real-life." It's all just politics, which is really sad, because this is, after all, a scientific issue.

[Icey]

You really don't think that ignorant, misinformed people are led to believe that this is the definite future? Well you must be lucky to not be around people who are stupid enough to believe movies at face value.

What kind of people are you hanging out with?... I have never met anyone who considered The Day After Tomorrow to be anything but a work of fiction. I really can't see why anyone would think it's realistic. It'd be like thinking the movie Armageddon is accurate (you know, the movie where the asteroid is going to crash into Earth).

[Masamune]

I have never met anyone who considered The Day After Tomorrow to be anything but a work of fiction.

Or worth watching.