• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why worry about global warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Supernaut

What did they aim for when they missed your heart?
Jun 12, 2009
3,460
282
Sacramento, CA
✟27,439.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I do have a strong opinion on global warming and don't believe in man caused global warming. I do believe in pollution in big cities caused by cars and coal burning plants.

You realize that people manufactured and drive these cars, built and operate those coal burning plants...so how do you not think that it was man that caused this?
 
Upvote 0

Greatcloud

Senior Member
May 3, 2007
2,814
271
Oregon coast
✟55,500.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You realize that people manufactured and drive these cars, built and operate those coal burning plants...so how do you not think that it was man that caused this?

I believe in man caused pollution but not in man caused global warming.



CO2
 
Upvote 0

Supernaut

What did they aim for when they missed your heart?
Jun 12, 2009
3,460
282
Sacramento, CA
✟27,439.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I believe in man caused pollution but not in man caused global warming.



CO2

Man caused a vast amount of the pollution that causes global warming.....so....shouldn't man take resonsibility for this?

2OC
 
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟22,818.00
Faith
Agnostic
which refuted by a huge number of science bodies, far more than 900+
This is incorrect. Any peer-reviewed criticism of the papers was refuted by the authors and the rebuttal is included on the list following the paper.

As for your "scientific bodies", a handful of an organization's council members who release a position statement or an organization's president who signs a statement does not equal endorsement of this position by the hundreds of thousands of these organization's members.

Please provide a complete survey of any of these organization's members position on AGW. Failure to do so means you cannot use them to support your argument.
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
60
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟25,599.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

I guess you will have to write off all the scientists linked with the IPCC.
 
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟22,818.00
Faith
Agnostic
I guess you will have to write off all the scientists linked with the IPCC.
All the scientists "linked" to the IPCC never signed the report so you have no idea what their position is in regards to AGW.

The number of scientists that supports AGW Alarm is in the minority.
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
60
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟25,599.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
All the scientists "linked" to the IPCC never signed the report so you have no idea what their position is in regards to AGW.

The number of scientists that supports AGW Alarm is in the minority.

I thik you can get a lot of information from this sirte and you tell me that there is no effect from unlocking millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere has no effect.

CO2 Now | CO2 Home
 
Upvote 0

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
60
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟25,599.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟22,818.00
Faith
Agnostic
More info for you:

BBC News - The arguments made by climate change sceptics
All of this is widely disputed but since I cannot post links, I cannot provide the counter arguments. To pick one,

The MWP was global according to data published by 983 individual scientists from 566 research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting.

Google - "Medieval Warm Period Project"
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Hey, it's the dude that got banned from JREF.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟36,153.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, this is one of the many ways that conservative think tanks lie.

The thing is, if you actually went back and asked the scientists who produced that data what they think, they'd almost certainly tell you that MWP has taken their work out of context and it doesn't imply what MWP says it implies. Furthermore, 983 is a tiny fraction of the total community of climate scientists, so that this statement is proof positive that MWP is cherry-picking data, which is a huge no-no in science.

With respect to their actual claims, the first thing I'd point out is simply that a medieval warm period does not in any way argue against present CO2-induced warming. If you would actually learn a little bit about climate science, you'd realize that there are a great many things that impact global average temperatures. And climate scientists have investigated and cataloged all of them. The main cause of the difference in temperature between now and about the 1970's is CO2.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.