Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?

No

In fact, from the information I have lately seen, nothing more serious is happening than that a Little Ice Age has recently ended.

I recognize that some who are promulgating the notion of global warming live in semi-tropical climes that have enjoyed (or, they might say, endured) hotter summers than usual. I live in a temperate clime (New Jersey, USA that has lately endured a rather harsh and lethal winter. I therefore cannot lend credence to global warming so long as my neighbors are freezing to death.

Anecdotal evidence aside, the climate models that claim to predict global warming are at best flawed, and at worst deliberately skewed.

"Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming" is not a valid argument; that is merely argument from the numbers. And when a politician (Albert Gore, Jr.) pontificates about "carbon footprints" while continuing to pursue the worst sort of conspicuous consumption in his own home (and in his means of private air transport), he is engaging in special pleading.

When the promulgators of the global-warming scare threaten to revoke the professional credentials of those who disagree with them, that's intimidation, a rather distasteful form of propaganda.

And finally: when some of the worst-"offending" nations (I put that in quotes because I do not accept this activity as a sin), i.e. the People's Republic of China, are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, that's special pleading of a sort that, even if global warming were real, would defeat the announced purpose of the Protocol.

Evidence, if you please. Not "I am disturbed by your view." Public policy debate will always disturb someone.--TerryH 12:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

In reply to the above, Itsjustme left the following without signing it:

The very most offending countries did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Guess which countries that are?
China did, but the USA did not! So do not tell anything about Kyoto Protocol and other countries as
long as the most Energy is wasted in the USA. Of course China is dangerous. If they only will need
half of the Energy per person the US is using today, the desaster will come faster than anyone thinks.

My reply to Itsjustme: First of all, in future you ought to sign your posts to this article. Just type four tildes; the editing engine will translate that automatically to a link to your user page and a time stamp.

As to the content of your statement: Of course China ratified the Kyoto Protocol, because China need not reduce any of its carbon emissions under its terms. Furthermore, I don't accept your premise about energy wasting in the United States--that's a loaded question if ever I heard one.

When I asked for evidence, I did not mean more examples of loaded questions and special pleading.--TerryH 17:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I am sorry that I forgot to sign my statement. I know how to do it, but forgot it that time. Yes China has not to reduce emissions, thats true. But they are now on a very low level in using energy and in terms of carbon emissions. Not to compare with USA, Europe or any other deveoloped region in the world. As people living there also want to get a piece of the cake of welthfare, we can not stop them to start driving cars, going for holiday with planes, ... Everything we from developed countries are doing since decades. As we are allready highly developed we can reduce our emmisions and still keep a very high wealthfare. But even if they start to use better technology in China, there are still hundrets of millions of people who do not drive a car today, who do not consume a lot today, ... Have a look to the CO2 emissions per capita in different countries around the world. An average US citizen is emitting more than 7 times as much co2 than an average person from china. If you compare the US emissions with those from European countries, you will see that those countries only emmit a little more than half of what the USA is emitting per capita. But in Europe they just made the decission to reduce emissions by 20% until 2020. The more engergy that is allready used, the easier it is to reduce it. If people in the USA would start to use more trains (as they do for example in Europe - you should ride with one of these fast trains there, it is great.). --Itsjustme 17:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

China is on anything but a low level of carbon emissions. Their increasing demand for oil is one factor that has driven the price of crude oil to $60 US per barrel and kept it there.

I seriously question the assumptions behind most "carbon footprint" calculations. I further remind you that Europe's standard of living has always been several steps behind our own. Furthermore, Europe is dying out--literally.

This proves that you have never been to Europe. Europes standards are for sure not several steps behind the standards in the USA. It is true for the Eastern European countries that were comunistic some years ago. But not for western Europe. You know that many of our "big steps" are comming from Europe? The car: Mercedes was the first - a German car. World Wide Web: It was born in Geneve (Switzerland).... Western European Contries are more or less at the same standard as the USA. Just go there, have a look for yourself. And do remind me about things that are not true at all. Europe is dying out? On what planet do you live? There is a low birthrate in some countries. But still Europe is far away from dying out. --Itsjustme 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Now if you want to suggest various techniques that people can use, and create a market for, that would be more environmentally friendly, then by all means start another Debate Topic on that subject. But that's not the question here. The question is whether anything we do to reduce carbon emissions is even necessary, or even sufficient. I deny both. You have to show both. I won't even describe in detail, here on this topic, the monumental hypocrisy of Albart Gore, Jr. and his twenty-times-normal use of electricity in his house in Belle Meade, Tennessee. Perhaps for every Al Gore, there's an Ed Begley, Jr. who at least tries to make his own home and life a showcase for carbon reduction. (Sometimes he looks ridiculous, and I know that he hasn't thought the matter through nearly as well as he things, but I give him points for trying.) But that's irrelevant and immaterial. Thus far you have shown levels of carbon emissions. You have not shown the harm they do.

So the question you have to answer is: So what? That's what I'm still waiting to hear.--TerryH 18:56, 10 March 2007 (EST)

As you do not believe the scientists, who were proofing that there is global warming - how should I proof it? You won't believe me. You won't believe me if I tell you that we have the warmest winter in the area were I live since temperature is recorded. You won't believe me if I tell you that there even was not a real winter at all in my area. You won't beleive that the average temperature was increasing over the last decades. And you won't believe that the rising temperature correlates with the concentration of CO2. You won't believe that the weather that scinetists were warning from 20 years ago is true today. You won't believe me, that the glaciers around the world are melting faster and faster. For sure they are melting because it is toooo cold for them. The great thing is: Even the politican who was one of the hardliners in denying global warming, George Bush, is now changing direction to a less "Oily" policy. --Itsjustme 19:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

How am I supposed to believe the so-called scientists, when they engage in intimidation, argumentum ab numeris, argumentum ad hominem, and non sequitur? So you had the warmest winter? Well, I had the coldest. So what? And correlation? You really disappoint me now. Correlation does not ipso facto equal causation, and I've heard a convincing argument that CO₂ is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a leading. And twenty years ago? Well, forty years ago they were predicting a return of the Big Ice Age.

Now about a "less 'oily' policy": President Bush has a reason for that, that has nothing to do with "global warming", and everything to do with national security. I would want that. My motive is simple: I want to bankrupt Al-Qa'ida and the whole Wahhabi establishment, and I'd also like to bankrupt Hugo Chavez into the bargain. I'd do what he's doing, and more: I'd encourage a redevelopment of the Fischer-Tropsch fuel process to produce liquid fuels from coal--or even to produce liquid fuels by extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere. (That would take a lot of energy--nuclear energy to be precise--but that would be better than carbon sequestration, which is the whackiest idea I've heard proposed.)

While we're on the subject: if you're honest-to-God serious, then are you prepared to see us build nuclear power plants to the extent that the French have done?--TerryH 20:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)