The Arguing Thread

<p>Maybe you should fix the apostrophes in your post before pointing out my spelling error.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think you did some selective omission there. There are far more intelligent people that believe global warming is real. But good list nonetheless.

[/quote]

Sure, show me a list. Now remember, just because you have more people doesn't make your issue right. Science doesn't rely on consensus.
Edit: Corrected..was writing this the same time as you were posting.

[quote]
Not just the payroll of Exxon...they couldn't do it all alone. I'm sure they've got help.

[/quote]

Hell, it doesn't mean that their views or findings are going to be falsified just because it was funded by an energy company. If that is so, lets reject every study done to date, because whoever funded it had to have an interest in it. The government's data cannot be trusted, since the government's interest is getting more power. If you want to talk about bias and politicized science, look no further than the IPCC.

[quote]
I'm not really sure about aliens...I don't think there's as much evidence for aliens as for global warming. I guess if you do, then that may make some question how valid your argument really is.

[/quote]

What!! I was sure they had a few pieces of ET down in Area 51!</p>

<p>Mars is warming..guessing our hydrocarbons have the destructive power to cause global warming on other planets as well!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html&lt;/a> Bah.</p>

<p>I don't see any apostrophe errors. Please feel free to point them out.</p>

<p>"What!! I was sure they had a few pieces of ET down in Area 51!"</p>

<p>Maybe we should save that one for another day...it could get ugly. </p>

<p>One of the biggest arguments against global warming seems to be that the earth is just experiencing a warming trend. This is a perfectly valid assumption. However, I find it strange that scientists have been finding an increase in CO2 content and have seen the Earth get warmer since shortly after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Coincidence in timing? While the Earth does have warming cycles, one would think it is all too obvious that mankind is helping to speed up the warming process. From Encarta:</p>

<p>As early as 1896 scientists suggested that burning fossil fuels might change the composition of the atmosphere and that an increase in global average temperature might result. The first part of this hypothesis was confirmed in 1957, when researchers working in the global research program called the International Geophysical Year sampled the atmosphere from the top of the Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa. Their instruments indicated that carbon dioxide concentration was indeed rising. Since then, the composition of the atmosphere has been carefully tracked. The data collected show undeniably that the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing.
Scientists have long suspected that the global climate, the long-term average pattern of temperature, was also growing warmer, but they were unable to provide conclusive proof. Temperatures vary widely all the time and from place to place. It takes many years of climate observations to establish a trend. Records going back to the late 1800s did seem to show a warming trend, but these statistics were spotty and untrustworthy. Early weather stations often were located near cities, where temperature measurements were affected by the heat emitted from buildings and vehicles and stored by building materials and pavements. Since 1957, however, data have been gathered from more reliable weather stations, located far away from cities, and from satellites. These data have provided new, more accurate measurements, especially for the 70 percent of the planetary surface that is ocean water (see Satellite, Artificial). These more accurate records indicate that a surface warming trend exists and that, moreover, it has become more pronounced. Looking back from the end of the 20th century, records show that the ten warmest years of the century all occurred after 1980, and the three hottest years occurred after 1990, with 2005 being the warmest year of all.</p>

<p>Greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing. Temperatures are rising. But does the gas increase necessarily cause the warming, and will these two phenomena continue to occur together? In 1988 the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization established a panel of 200 leading scientists to consider the evidence. In its Third Assessment Report, released in 2001, this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global air temperature had increased 0.6 Celsius degree (1 Fahrenheit degree) since 1861. The panel agreed that the warming was caused primarily by human activities that add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The IPCC predicted in 2001 that the average global temperature would rise by another 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees (2.5 to 10.4 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. </p>

<p>You've got me on Mars thing...your guess is as good as mine.</p>

<p>The way I see it, even if there is still uncertainty, it is better to be safe than sorry. Why continue to contribute to global warming? Whether mankind is completely responsible for the Earth warming cannot be confirmed at this time, but it would be ignorant to assume that the current consumption of fuels does not hasten the process. It is a difficult decision though as it will effect the economies of many nations, and as GW realized, the US would have to really change the way it used energy. </p>

<p>In time, I believe we'll have to do something. Even if it were caused by the Earth's natural cycle, we're only hurrying the process and digging ourself deeper into a hole.</p>

<p>The IPCC can predict whatever they want. If you sit down and write down a number between 0 and 4 right now you its just about as accurate. In 1988 James Hansen predicted that in the next decade the earth will warm x degrees (don't remember the number). In 1998, it turned out he was off by a large amount. Computer models do not mean anything. It just a really expensive guess.</p>

<p>Oh ya..

[quote]
Their days are numbered and Cornell will eventually take it's rightful place as the best university in the world

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The way I see it, even if there is still uncertainty, it is better to be safe than sorry. Why continue to contribute to global warming? Whether mankind is completely responsible for the Earth warming cannot be confirmed at this time, but it would be ignorant to assume that the current consumption of fuels does not hasten the process

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Simple economics. Opportunity costs. You go ahead and cut your emissions or energy by 80%. If the US is expected to do that, the economy will collapse. Funny how China and India are not subjected to the Kyoto protocol. Ths protocol is nothing more than a socialist pact to hinder 1st world countries. 20 years from now people will forget about global warming. Just like we don't hear global cooling (the craze of the 70s) or nuclear winter (80s) any more, global warming will be another idea we look back and laugh at.</p>

<p>ahhh lol you caught me on one of my older posts. damn. job well done.</p>

<p>Right...but you approach the topic as if global warming is complete nonsense. For the many that give it some credit, something must be done in the future. The US economy will collapse because the US is the biggest polluter on the planet. What the nation needs is to change the way it thinks. Besides energy, the way people waste resources is deplorable and will ultimately come to a head. I think it's better to look for a solution that is economically viable than to completely ignore the problem and say that since the US will be hurt by change, nothing should change. Maybe the Kyoto Agreement just needs time for everyone to accept it. Eventually, China and India will be on the same level as the US in terms of energy consumption...maybe then everyone can stop competing and take a moment to consider what's going on.</p>

<p>COMPLETELY ignoring this global warming debate (Brand182 there actually is some thread on here about global warming, gets ugly lol), is what you said about Mars true? I've never heard of that, ever. I couldnt think of any reason that contribute to that other than Mars' orbit has moved closer to the sun. Mars lacks the atmospheric gases capable of trapping heat, and as its core is frozen (I think), its not getting any warmer.
Completely based off of opinoins and not fact, I just tried to answer my own question without any knowledge on the subject...please explain!</p>

<p>Edit: i didnt mean its inner core, just the area beneath the surface, man I suck with terms.</p>

<p>Greenhouse effect and global warming are not the same thing by the way.</p>