Global Warming is an OUTRIGHT LIE!!!!!!!

Pre-College Issues High School Life
61

<p>^ They'll manage I suppose. It's not like life would end due to a lack of species variety. Consider the dinosaur extinctions. They were gradually replaced by the mammals eventually. </p>

<p>Oil is running out and we will be soon forced to find alternative sources of clean energy. I think that the situation may stabilize over time. I have quirky theories on the environment :). Maybe we are averting the next ice age cycle by our global warming? It's strange considering I got a 5 on Environmental Science. </p>

<p>Anyway, global warming is a problem, but I think that humans are limited in their ability to cause damage by the limitation of fossil resources.</p>

62

<p>Gryffon: Do you want another mass extinction like that?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
proletariat2: well that's great. the weaker species die out, and the stronger ones survive. Synthetic Darwinism here :P

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that's true, but the problem is that it isn't the weaker species dying. I suppose you could argue that climate change is, in effect, making them weaker, but we're not looking to permanently make the Earth a gigantic desert/rainforest(/ocean, of course).</p>

63

<p>^ point taken. But by the time the species die, humans should be colonizing other planets.
Cmon, a few more views for 1000 views!</p>

64

<p>take AP ENVS. that'll solve any questions about the issue</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
heres the thing. every reputable scientist in the world who isn't being funded by oil companies or car companies or politicians believes that global warming is happening and we're causing it.

[/quote]

This is simply an untrue statement. Sure, lots of the scientists who don't believe in global warming ARE funded by oil companies, etc. Similarly, lots of scientists who do belive that humans are the cause of global warming are funded by places that are equally biased for its existance as oil companies. But there are also reputable scientists on BOTH sides of the debate who are not influenced by who they are funded by!</p>

<p>As for basing your beliefs (whatever they are) on what you've learned in classes in school: I do not think these are particuarly good sources of information. Sure, you may learn that the earth is getting warmer and that its all our fault and get to see "proof" of it. But do you really think everything you're taught in school is true? The accepted view at the moment seems to be that humans are causing global warming, and therefore that is what is in the school curriculum. Plenty of things have been taught in school that have later been found to be incorrect.</p>

66

<p>I actually watched Al Roker on Channel 4 (NBC) this morning remark how the unusually high January temperature was 'global warming'. My birthday is in late January. I am turning 55. I can remember very clearly that each and every January of my life there's been a "january thaw". (See, there's even a name for it.) I lived in NYC as a kid, and one birthday it got up to 75! This is not something new. I only noticed it each year because of my birthday, but it does happen every single year.</p>

67

<p>There are several things wrong with your argument.</p>

<p>Global warming is not just one "January thaw" in NYC. It's happening all over the world all the time (and as someone else mentioned earlier, its not always warming, sometimes its cooling, which is why it should be global climate change). I would feel better if it was just NYC getting a bit warmer, but average temperatures over THE ENTIRE GLOBE have risen a whole degree! Think about how gigantic the world is, and think how alarming it is that we've increased the temperature EVERYWHERE by a degree (Celsius) on average.</p>

<p>Just because it's been happening since the 60s doesn't mean its OK. Global warming due to humans has been happening ever since the first human being made the first fire. It's just that until fairly recently, our effects have not been drastic enough for us to notice them. But during the industrial revolution and afterwards, our pollution outputs have risen so much that it IS becoming a major effect, and it is only now that we are starting to realize it. So just because its been happening all your life doesn't mean its been happening forever unless you're really old.</p>

68

<p>So here's some more stuff, mostly taken from Wikipedia. Now before you all go saying wiki is unreliable and all that, please note that the article on global warming is a fairly hot article, so any BS put there would not last for long. Wiki is also pretty damn accurate on scientific issues and such, so I am comfortable in putting my trust in Wiki. If anyone challenges me, I will go ahead and get data from other sources (which will be as hard as scrolling to the bottom of the wiki page and clicking on their sources). </p>

<p>All my data will be taken from Global</a> warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Specifically, it will only be one graph from that page.</p>

<p>So anyways. I'll make two points. And I give you two options: accept my position, or tell me why my argument is wrong.</p>

<p>1) Carbon Dioxide increase</p>

<p>So its general knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which means the more you have, the less you dissipate heat, the warmer you get. </p>

<p>Now take a look at this graph taken from wiki.</p>

<p>Image:Carbon</a> Dioxide 400kyr-2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>First of all, the most important thing to note is not on the graph itself. Scroll down to Data Sources and see that it is actually real data. Not made up numbers or anything, but real data published by respectable magazines.</p>

<p>OK, back to the graph. In the 400 THOUSAND years before 1800 (which by the way includes several climate variations and ice ages and such) the CO2 levels of the atomosphere NEVER rose above 300 ppm. Since 1800, the CO2 levels have increased from below 300 ppm to roughly 375 ppm. That's an increase of roughly 30%. So, if you believe the data, then it is an undebatable FACT that CO2 levels have increased.</p>

<p>2) Why has it increased?</p>

<p>Now what has caused this change? Is it just natural cycles? I firmly believe it is NOT due to the nature because of two undeniable facts: the MAGNITUDE of the change, and the SPEED of the change. In the past 200 years we have seen an increase above the maximum that is equivalent to the total variation over the past 400 thousand years. </p>

<p>To put this forth in a manner that is easier to grasp, imagine that you live in a house where the temperature is always been 65 and 70. You live here for 2000 days (one day for every 200 years). The temperature is never lower than 65, never higher than 70, and is usually somewhere in between. Every day you check your thermostat, and every day you see that it is diligently keeping the temperature between 65 and 70. Now after over 5 years you wake up and the temperature has risen to 75 overnight. You would be alarmed, wouldn't you? You wouldn't think this change is due to the same change that caused the temperature to previously stay between 65 and 70. Something happened!</p>

<p>So, if you agree with me so far, then this change has to be due to something else. What has been present these past few hundred years that the world has not seen in the past 400 thousand? I'm open to suggestions, but I can only think of one thing: the industrialization of humans. Unless one of you can think of another cause for the CO2 increase, we arrive at the conclusion that humans, through industrialization, have directly caused the CO2 levels to rise roughly 30%.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
take AP ENVS. that'll solve any questions about the issue

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If that were true, that a freshman year college course would solve all of the questions, then there wouldn't be any debate...</p>