<p>^I don’t want to argue, because I don’t know a thing about Global Warming, but what do you disbelieve about it?
In school, we have always learned that CO2 is released by human activities. It acts as a ‘Greenhouse’ gas in the atmosphere, which causes the average temperature to increase.
Which bits do you disbelieve?</p>
<p>^I learned the same things you did. I’ve done experiments with carbon dioxide, learned ways to reduce my power use, seen pictures of melting icecaps… But what caused me to be skeptical of the theory was when I studied biology and actually got to see the numbers involved. I’ve an interest in statistics, so I’ve done quite a bit of thinking on this.</p>
<p>Over the last 100 years, the Global temperatures have fluctuated wildly, but the overall trend was a slight rise (about .4 degrees C) from 1900 to 1930, followed by a fairly steady temperature to 1978. There appears to be a sudden drop in 1979, but that is due to the change to sattelite measurements, which included the oceans as well as the land. The trend holds steady until the 80s and 90s, when it begins rising again. Enter Al Gore and An Inconvienent Truth. In the last 10 years the average temperature has hovered around the 1999 levels or about .8 above 1900.</p>
<p>So yes, the world has warmed. But then you look at CO2. If the theory were true, you would expect a CO2 spike in the first few decades of the century, then fairly steady levels until the 80s when the temperature began rising again. Instead, you see very little change form 1900 to 1930, then a steadily steepening slope all through the rest of the century. It bears no resemblance at all to the temperature graph. The only way to claim any correlation is assume a bunch of arbitrary variables about how long the CO2 takes to have an effect and so forth, thus pushing the signifigant parts of the graph off of the periods we have data for. In other words, if Global Warming was just a giant scam created by a few scentists over coffee, we should expect exactly the same graphs that we have now.</p>
<p>I’m willing to belive the theory if anyone will convince me with actual facts, instead of lies followed by “well, it’s true but you wouldn’t belive it so we lie to make things easier.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I hope you don’t actually think these are decent analogies.</p>
<p>As an aside, do you believe that the people saying that petroleum supplies will be exhausted in the relatively near future are lying?</p>
<p>^I haven’t seen the facts on that issue, so I don’t know. I think those are decent analogies, in all three cases we’re expected to just take their word for it without any evidence.</p>
<p>So you think Islamic scholars promote that religion? Even the ones that aren’t even Muslim? In the 2nd case, the scientist has no evidence whatsoever. Only a fool would argue that no evidence has been presented in the case of climate change. At worst, you disagree with the evidence, though in Beamonesque fashion you conclude that it is all a hoax and a conspiracy.</p>
<p>You should read up on the world oil supply. You may be enlightened to find that the justifications for conservation go well beyond a graph in your biology textbook.</p>
<p>9/11. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either blind or ignorant, take your pick. </p>
<p>9/11- worst terrorism attack on American soil of our generation. Led to the Iraq war. Led to the Afghanistan war. “Wars” since we haven’t ACTUALLY declared war, but I digress. </p>
<p>These “wars” have led us to record breaking deficits that we will be paying off for YEARS to come. </p>
<p>These “wars” have led us to be one of the most politically polarized periods in American history. </p>
<p>These “wars” have exasperated tensions between the liberal West and the conservative Middle East which will haunt us and follow us for the rest of our lives. </p>
<p>We have given up many rights and privileges in the name of keeping America safe, all in the memory of 9/11.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The US was not at war during 9/11. The more appropriate correlation would be between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, which many would argue was the defining moment of their generation. </p>
<p>As for climate change- that has been known since the 70s. Not necessarily our generation. </p>
<p>Biggest political issue of our time- equal rights for everyone despite their sexuality.</p>
<p>"But then you look at CO2. If the theory were true, you would expect a CO2 spike in the first few decades of the century, then fairly steady levels until the 80s when the temperature began rising again. Instead, you see very little change form 1900 to 1930, then a steadily steepening slope all through the rest of the century. It bears no resemblance at all to the temperature graph. The only way to claim any correlation is assume a bunch of arbitrary variables about how long the CO2 takes to have an effect and so forth, thus pushing the signifigant parts of the graph off of the periods we have data for. In other words, if Global Warming was just a giant scam created by a few scentists over coffee, we should expect exactly the same graphs that we have now.
"</p>
<p>I think a part of that could be melting ice. Ice reflects heat, water absorbs, thus accelerating the process. It’s speeding up now since more ice is becoming melted (which in turn is caused by the higher temperature).</p>
<p>Clearly, that couldn’t actually account for everything, but would be a good part of it.</p>
<p>My argument with the whole carbon-temperature correlation is that while it may be slightly shaky since we don’t understand it perfectly, it’s been proven that carbon and methane contribute to a fairly large degree so I don’t really see a reason why we shouldn’t.</p>
<p>And they wouldn’t be taxing you, they would be taxing companies for carbon emissions. The U.S voters are NEVER going to accept direct carbon taxes on citizens, you would have riots. Taxes on companies would be the only + most effective way they would address the carbon issue, really.</p>
<p>However I don’t like global warming believers who refuse to debate it with skeptics. It delegitimizes their side and misses alternative ways to combat it. No matter the extent of carbon in global warming, global warming is still a problem.</p>
<p>Also, Al Gore is such a hypocrite. Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. And I am a green, liberal hippie. He’s the poster child for everything wrong with the global warming debate.</p>
<p>Stuff upon stuff adding to an omnipresent feeling of the-end-is-near.</p>
<p>@math+sci=asian: I’m not quite sure what you mean about melting ice… Ice only melts if the temperature changes. Melting ice is an effect, not a cause. The temperature change doesn’t appear to be accelerating, rather a short increase followed by a steady period.</p>
<p>The carbon/methane effect is proven? How if not by the graphs?</p>
<p>I completly do not buy the “it will only tax companies” line. Everyone in this country either owns or works for a company.</p>