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.

Forty years ago, they thought computers woudl never get smaller than room-sized monstrosities. Scientists do occasionally update their beliefs in the face of massive disproof. --Fullmetajacket 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

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)

The French haven't had a nuclear meltdown yet, have they? --Fullmetajacket 16:50, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, now that you mention it--they haven't! Let me be quite clear: I am all in favor of building more nuclear power plants, for reasons that go far beyond the narrow issue (and, I still say, false concern) of "global warming." Sadly, Ed Begley, Jr. is not--which is why I said that he hasn't thought the matter through, though I still hope he someday will. Albert Gore Jr. certainly is not--and that, plus his Belle Meade house, convince me that he is not serious about the environment, and desires only to be a totalitarian and keep everybody else poor.

But nuclear power would solve a whole host of problems--and we can do it safely, too.--TerryH 20:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes

It is unlikely people can stop it altogether, but turning off your lights would be a good start.

Ninety percent of scientists accept global warming Template:Fallacy

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. Citation needed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intelligent (talk)

Mr. "Intelligent," you asked for a citation. All right, here's a citation for you--from the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, no less.

If I turn off my lights, then how do I know that you're going to turn off yours?

You can readily see what I think of your "ninety percent" argument. What's happening is that ninety percent of scientists are fudging their data to get grants--which is to say, to get graft.--TerryH 16:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm pretty sure of the existence of global warming, and I also believe that man is a contributor. The obvious way to slow global warming would be to cease pouring greenhous gases into the atmosphere, even at the cost of the partial restriction of capitalism. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 19:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

From observation here in Maine, it is happening. Over the years, the date the lakes and rivers freeze up here happens later, and the day they thaw comes earlier. Average global mean temperature has also risen over the past few decades. The real debate is how much is natural and how much is man-made.--Dave3172 20:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I should think the debate ought to be, "How bad is it, really?" Frankly, the first thing I noticed, when I thought this winter would be one of our mildest, was that our heating bill was less. You'd think that people would realize that if the winter turns mild, people don't burn as much fuel because they don't need to. But no! Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone.

I further remind one and all that no less than three separate conventions of global-warming alarmists had to be postponed or cancelled for a reason that no global-warming alarmist would ever have predicted: cold-weather travel hazards or similar emergencies.--TerryH 20:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

In some areas a warmer weather might be quite nice. But the world is bigger than one tiny area around you. There are people living in areas that are more and more deserted. They die, because there is no water. There are people living at the coast. They will loose their homes (and maybe go to your place), when more glaciers around the world will melt. There are people who earn their money with wintersports. They will loose their jobs when there is less snow in the mountains. There are people whose life is bound to cold areas (e.g. native Greenland people) and they will loose the base of their lifes. The world consists of far more than a person with a limited horizont can see. And there are a lot of things people just do not want to see. When I once was in Bombay (India) for business purposes a guy asked me "What about that global warming. It seems to be a big problem for you in the west". When I told him that "global" also means Mumbai (Indian for Bombay) and that Mumbai will be one of the first places that disappears when the sea level should rise, he was surprised. People tend not to see that the things that happen will also affect themselves. --Itsjustme 18:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

And you have not shown that Mumbai or any other city will disappear beneath a rising ocean. No one has so shown, by any reasonable standard whatsoever. So why don't you stop scaring people to no purpose?--TerryH 19:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)