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

Contrary evidence

You all might want to take a look at this article, which offers some highly embarrassing details on Albert Gore, Jr.'s public-policy pronouncements, his refusal to do that which he asks others to do, and other, even grosser sins against the environment.

1. A number of eminent scientists are now claiming--and for publication in The New York Times, no less--that Gore's reports of the planet's imminent demise from heatstroke are greatly exaggerated.
2. The article reiterates the accusation of special pleading against Gore--that while his Academy Award winning film asks, "Are you prepared to change your lifestyle?", Gore has not shown himself willing to change his own. Futhermore, it gives this detail on those "carbon offsets":

   The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."

3. And now The Tennesseean (Nashville) reports that Gore has a zinc mine that has a history of polluting a local river.

Point number one above is the most important point, though points two and three show that former Senator Gore is not the most qualified authority on the subject.

I have said before that this debate is an adversarial proceeding, with Gore advocating that everyone else fundamentally change the way they (or I should say, we) live because the planet is somehow in peril and that peril is somehow our fault. But any lawyer (and he is one) knows that when a witness tells a lie on a material point, everything else he says is automatically suspect without independent corroboration. Well, special pleading might not be lying, but that zinc-mine affair shows him guilty of monumental dissemblance, which is close. So my advice to the global-warming alarmists is to find another chief advocate, and try to content with Point One.--TerryH 08:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

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.

Responding to the claim that you cannot believe the evidence because you have just experienced a "rather harsh and lethal" winter: NOAA announced today that this winter has been the warmest ever since we've been keeping records [1]. However, I don't dispute that it was bad in New Jersy, most models of climate change predict that precipitation will be redistributed so that some areas will get an usual ammount of snow and rain. Perhaps this is what made your winter so harsh and lethal? --Romney4king 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, after the last several winters have been cold, harsh, snowy, occasioned great expense for snow clearance and equally great property damage from traffic accidents, froze people to death and caused other people to die in two-ton metal coffins. When you're comparing it to the Blizzard of 1996, or the Eighteen Storms of Jersey in the 1993-4 winter--well, frankly we could use another 1.3 degrees of warmth.

Tell you what, neighbor: let's trade homes. You come here to New Jersey and put yourself in the deep freeze, and I'll move out to wherever you are and thaw out.--TerryH 09:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm from Minnesota. I doubt I'd mind. --Romney4king 09:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Then what in the name of Jack Frost are you complaining about?--TerryH 10:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Complaining? You were complaining about how hard your winter is, and issued the challenge that I would not hold the opinion I do if I lived somewhere cold. I answered that I have, in fact, lived somewhere cold and I still think global warming is a huge problem. --Romney4king 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Then your position is a total non sequitur. How can you say the globe is warming when your own thermometer tells you that it's still cold? How can you say that the globe is warming when three conferences called by global-warming alarmists had to be canceled because of snow and ice? How can you say that the globe is warming, when a North Pole expedition, looking for "evidence," had to turn back because one of the expeditionaries came down with frostbite? This whole debate gets more ridiculous with every passing week.--TerryH 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

You assert that you know something about logic, so I think that you are aware that this whole argument is based on the logical fallacies of proving too much and misleading vividness. Climate change does not mean that people are going to immediately stop getting frostbite when they make expeditions to the North Pole.--Romney4king 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

By that same token, then, no one has shown that tomorrow the forests of Southern California are going to go up in smoke, or that San Francisco is going to slip into the sea, or that Key West is going to wash away. And before you say that "nobody ever said that," I say that they have. One point three degrees. So what??? Again, it's still not as warm as some other winters we used to have in New Jersey. We got unprecedented snow in 1993-4, and before then, we hardly ever had three feet of snow to fall in one day. Global warming? Hah! Global cooling was more like it.

And another thing: we haven't discussed a little item such as the finding of polar ice melts on Mars. Now are you going to claim that we are somehow fouling up the climate on Mars, too?

All that's happening is that the sunspots are a little more active. This, too, shall pass. And when it does, you can ice yourself down again, just as you were used to doing.--TerryH 16:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

We're almost off the page at this point, so this'll be my last response, and you can have the final word.

1.3 degrees (by the way, are you refering to how much it has changed so far, or projected change?) may not sound like much, but it does have a big effect. Example: during the last major ice age, when glaciers covered as far south as Ohio, the temperature was only 9 degrees different than it is now. You can cite cases of people getting frostbite at the North Pole and all sorts of other proving too much logical fallacies, but you still haven't attempted to come up with a coherent argument disputing the basic premises of the case for climate change: 1. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide. 2. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. --Romney4king 16:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, we are at the sunspot minimum of the cycle rather than the maximum. [2] and [3] for more on the sunspot count. --Mtur 16:08, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Template:Fallacy "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.

Since we're quoting logical fallacies, this is a clear case of Argumentum ad hominem. You aren't refuting the facts, you're attacking the man. And since Gore's side of the story is missing here: Gore offsets his energy usage by buying shares of "clean energy". So, for every ton of CO2 he emits, he buys a matching ammount of energy produced by wind power or by harvesting methane (see this site for details on how this can be done: [4] ). Essentially, he offsets his energy consumption by making sure that an equal ammount spent elsewhere is renewable, and doesn't produce carbon dioxide.--Romney4king 00:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I've heard that excuse many times before. Gore buys "clean energy offsets" from a company he owns, and one that, furthermore, won't sell to anyoone else. So if you think I'm attacking him, of course I am--for hypocrisy and mendacity. About the only good that might come out of this is the development of certain techniques that might--I say again, might--prove valuable for reasons other than this false climate alarm.

But if Gore were at all serious, then he would turn his home into a showcase home for conversation, as Ed Begley, Jr. did.--TerryH 09:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

You're saying that Al Gore owns the Nashville Electrical service, where he gets his electricity [5]? --Romney4king 13:53, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

He owns this Global Initiatives outfit where he buys his "carbon offsets," like planting trees. That's what I mean by buying carbon offsets from himself.--TerryH 14:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

So, he pays his energy bill to a company that he doesn't own, then spends additional money to offset his carbon output by creating wind and solar power and planting trees. --Romney4king 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

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)

It would seem that TerryH, and perhaps many others, have confused global warming with local weather; a typical but important mistake. Climate change is indicated by an increase in the average temperature as measured over the entire planet, not at the local level. When viewed on a planetary scale, temperatures have increased dramatically. These changes will effect local weather and those effects may be manifested by higher snow-falls, hotter summers, more sever hurricanes, or any number of local phenomena. If you're going to argue a point, you'd best use valid points, otherwise your entire argument is flawed. Jwcddd

Temperatures have often skidded as quickly as you say they are rising. You haven't begun to show that those temperatures will not soon peak and head south again.--TerryH 12:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are responding to me, TerryH, I didn't say a word about the speed at which temperatures are rising. What I said was that you have confused local weather with global climate. If you want to make a significant point on global climate change then be specific. You say that 90% of scientists are lying about global warming for one reason or another. If that is so, on what do you base the statement? And if you wish to discuss temperature swings over thousands or millions of years, be careful what or how you introduce those arguements because the discussion today is not so much that temperatures are changing but rather the speed at which they have been measured to change. The swings involved with glacial and warming periods are measured in thousands of years; todays' swing is seen in as little as thirty years. jwcddd

What "ninety percent of all scientists" are saying, doesn't make a bit of sense. Their behavior makes sense in the current grant climate--they don't get grants unless they toe the liberal line. That is graft, sir.

Millions of years? The universe is not even that old.--TerryH 13:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't try to change the subject. Let's stick with global warming. You have not presented a case why global warming is not taking place. You have attempted to discredit scientists by saying they are seeking grant money, but you have neglected to acknowledge that nearly every government in the developed world is concerned with the warming trend. Would you submit that those governments are also wrong? It seems to me that the notion that warming is not taking place, or that humans are not connected to that trend is based more on political or ideological beliefs than on scientific method. In an earlier entry, you asked for evidence of global warming. What evidence do you need, or rather what type of evidence would you accept. Apparently carbon loading of the atmosphere, increased average sea temperature, reduction of the polar ice cap, melting of permafrost, reduction of the Greenland ice cap, or increasing landmass temperatures are not enough evidence. But let me ask this: why would you not accept the premise of global warming? What have you got to lose? If you have life insurance, or homeowners insurance, or automobile insurance, you are protecting yourself against unanticipated hardships, correct? Would'nt the argument for global warming provide the incentives for governments to provide insurance for their peoples? Or is it not the responsibility of governments to protect their people. If not, then this whole discussion is worthless, because whatever beliefs you subscribe to mean nothing to the people who hold the well being of humanity in their hands. If that's the case, then pity all of us. [jwcddd]

I do not accept any obligation to "disprove" global warming.

You're trying to assert that res ipsa loquitur--the thing speaks for itself.

Well, it doesn't.

As to what I have to lose--well, start with my livelihood, or any way of having a livelihood, or any economy in which I or anyone else would have a livelihood. You either underestimate or are deliberately concealing the true plans of the global-warming alarmist crowd. They want total control over the economy, and this is their latest way to get it.

Over my dead body.--TerryH 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you accept any obligation to disprove global warming? A theory has been put forward and the only way to defeat a theory is to show, logically, where it is in error. Your statement that global warming is not a fact is just that, a statement. If you cannot offer a viable reason for your statement, why should I or anyone else accept your assertion? Certainly not because of your conspiracy paranoia. jwcddd

For one simple reason: the global warming debate is at heart an adversarial proceeding. It might as well be titled People of the Temple of Gaia versus All Those Who Consume More than the Allowed Amount of Energy Per Person Per Day. Albert Gore, Jr, of course, appears as the lead counsel for the plaintiff--and a most unworthy counsel he is, because he consumes twenty times as much energy as any of the rest of us.

In any event, Gore and his co-counsels, including people like you, are trying to argue that res ipsa loquitur--the thing speaks for itself.

If that be shown, then and only then does the burden-of-proof shift to the defendant--and here on Conservapedia, I seem to be the chief advocate for the defense in this particular forum.

Now as any lawyer knows, in order to win a judgment based on res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must establish that the thing causing the alleged damage lies under the exclusive control of the defendant.

So all I really have to show is that mankind does not have exclusive control. But more than that, the plaintiff must show that mankind does have that exclusive control.

You can't show that. You can't even show significant damage--but even if you could, you cannot establish an exclusivity of control by man. Not when the planet Mars is warming up in just as great a proportion as, if not a greater proportion than, is the earth.

I have heard of a lot of "climatological models." I have not heard of one yet that has been shown to be accurate.

Consider what a judgment for the plaintiff means. It means that the government ought to forbid people to drive an automobile without first getting the equivalent of a Certificate of Need for building a hospital. It means that the government ought to forbid people to live in single-family residences without a similar CON, and require everyone to live in dormitory-style "apartments." It means that all transportation will be public transportation--except for Al Gore's limousine. It means that everyone's electricity budget gets cut back ninety percent. It means no more individual computers, TV sets, or any other kind of "gadget."

I can see it now: Al Gore living large in the master's house and riding around in his limousine, and Ed Begley, Jr. as the dedicated forman, living as simply as everyone else, enforcing the Gore rules as ruthlessly as is required, and never questioning their necessity, or the logical holes in them.

Given such stakes as that, the defense has the right to insist on a very high burden of proof. Indeed the defense "moves" that the burden be set to the highest of standards: beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course, I maintain that the plaintiff cannot even satisfy a burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. It certainly cannot satisfy the exclusive-control test required for a res ipsa loquitur verdict.--TerryH 20:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that's quite an answer. But of course you have once again avoided the issue. Global warming is not a court case. It is a scientific proposition which can only be found wanting through a scientific process. Your hang-ups with Gore and Mars, have no bearing on the debate, and one would assume that your reason for not addressing the issue directly reflects your inability to do so.

Models are presented to demonstrate possibilities, as proof-of-concept representations. No model has ever been 100% correct because there are no crystal balls in real life. However, models are based on fundamental research; not mysticism or magic. These same research fundamentals gave society the Germ Theory of Medicine, home computers, and DVD's. Models are why drug companies do trials before their products go to market; and models are used to make buildings safer, and airplanes able to meet performance criteria. So unless you can dismiss out of hand, the methodology that affords progress for the health and welfare of humanity, not to mention the conveniences of civilization, you still have not given anyone reading this page a reason to doubt that global warming is a fact. jwcddd

And you show, as is usual for liberals, that you are unable to put yourself in another person's place. I have raised another issue that you consistently ignore: that you have not yet proved that mankind is exclusively at fault in your so-called process.

Your argument assumes that global warming is established with the same rigor and dispassionate observation with which Antoine Lavoisier disproved the phlogiston theory of combustion, or Benjamin Franklin determined that lightning was a physical phenomenon and not exclusively a mystical one. Your argument further conflates invention with the prescription of public policy.

I say again: your theory requires a public policy tantamount to punishment of those who live larger than yourself or higher than some threhold that you and your co-ideologues define. And because of that, it is for you to show that global warming is a fact, and that mankind is at tortious fault for same.

You are alleging the tort of negligence. Four things are required to establish negligence:

1. Duty of care.
2. Dereliction of duty.
3. Injury.
4. Damage.

Thus far, you have not shown dereliction of duty. You have not even shown injury, much less damage--but you have definitely not shown dereliction of duty.

I could simply observe that your arrogance, in thinking that you are my judge, amazes me, and let it go at that. But I further observe that neither you nor anyone on your side has begun to think the matter through.--TerryH 21:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well Terry, I think you and yours are the ones who have not thought things through. Your arguments are based on the assumed full culpability of man for global warming. No one has made such an assertion. What has been stated in virtually every study on the evolution of the warming phenomenon is that carbon loading of the atmosphere, which has accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, tends to exacerbate and subsequently, accelerate the warming trend. Now you as a human may not wish to accept responsibility, and that’s fine; but you as an intellectual should appreciate the logic in making attempts at minimizing the over-all affects of climate change. You worry about how your life would be disrupted if the economic base of the world had to adjust to offset warming when, in fact, the logical apprehension should be caused by the possibility that the warming is a fact and that, if nothing is done, a major portion of the global economy might collapse. Now that’s not an idle joke. Consider that nearly one third of the human race lives within a meter or two of sea level; that most third world agricultural areas are adjacent to or within close proximity to rivers and streams. How much disruption to the human endeavor would result from a sea level rise of just half a meter?

You like to call the supporters of the warming theory alarmists. Well maybe they are; but you could just as easily be called someone who wants to bury his head in the sand. You posit that warming theory is wrong for the very reasons you should be embracing attempts to prove it and to address its issues; the affect it will have on your life, your society, and your well being. Of course, I mean that rhetorically because the worse will not happen in our, or at least in my, lifetime; but I would suspect that you are not so selfish as to wish to jeopardize the health and well being of your progeny. Consider the effect the displacement of a billion people might have on the world economy. The wars that will be fought for shrinking resources such as water and food.

Now I don’t have to prove that to you or anyone else, the simple possibility that it may occur should be motivation enough to ask “what can be done to prevent it from happening?”

You can engage in all the smoke screening you like. If you seriously think that global warming will go away, or not occur because you don’t like Gore; or because you think that scientists are just advancing the theory to enjoy financial gain; or because it may in part, be caused by increased solar activity, then you are not as intelligent as you would have people believe. You say the proponents try to assert that res ipsa loguitur –the thing speaks for itself. In fact, that is your argument, just coming from the opposite direction.

There you have it, Terry. You can answer if you want, you can continue to cower behind your Latin clichés, and you can continue to convince yourself that you have nothing to fear. You can have the last word, TerryH. You are no longer worth my time here. You accuse me of not having thought things through; I would assert that you have thought of nothing but denial. I have no respect for people who are incapable of logical thought; who engage not in unbiased science, but rather unscientific bias. jwcddd 21:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

What you stand on is not science at all, but grant-moneyed political pabulum and propaganda. I have no respect for them who accuse me falsely--not merely of "denial," as you put it, but of an intentional tort against the environment. For that is the accusation you continue to make.

As for granting me the last word--is that a promise?--TerryH^Talk 22:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally am very skeptical of the current "global warming" frenzy. It just doesn't appear to have much solidity to it, and even if the earth is warming, the environment is highly self-regulatory. Warmer temperatures mean increased evaporation. Now it is true that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but as it condense in the atmosphere, it forms clouds, which block the suns rays, dim the surface, and effectively lower temperatures. I personally believe that the earth might warm, but only to a certain point, at which natural systems would work to cool it again. --Blu Aardvark 09:33, 26 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)

Many people have allready shown. We do not have to reinvent the wheel every day. It is simple mathematics: Glaciers around the world are melting. Proven. Just google for pictures if there is no glacier area that you know yourself. It is not a shame that you do not live close to one. Glaciers consist of .... right ... water. Water goes where? ... Into the sea. Either direct or through rivers. Now you just have to measure how fast the glaciers will continue to melt and how much volume will melt. After you know how much ice will melt, you know the volume it takes in the oceans. You have to calculate the area of all oceans in the world, and .... simple mathematics ... you can easily calculate the amount of cm or meters that the seas will rise.

Why don't you stop ignoring facts for no purpose? You allready agreed that the temperatures are rising. ("Some people just can't seem to enjoy weather that is better than usual, and less likely to kill someone." or "...that a Little Ice Age has recently ended". In short for you again: End of Ice Age means less ice. Less ice means more water. Water has to go somewhere. It ends in the ocean. More water in the ocean means => Higher sea level. Higher sea level means => Places that were just a little above sea level will be (just a little) below sea level. Easy enogh for you to understand? --Itsjustme 19:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, sure, sure. So how much water does that glacier hold? And how wide is the ocean? In fact: hasn't that glacier been melted before, and re-formed? Does the term Little Ice Age mean anything to you? Or do you deny it?

Once again, you have not shown that the circumstances are as dire as you portray. And if you propose to sentence the entire civilized world to a pre-industrial existence, you owe the world a showing that none can doubt. (And while you're at it, you need to ask Al Gore where he gets off using all that energy in his own house. Why, even George W. Bush has a better "showcase home" for conservation than Gore has!)

The glaciers around the world are holding enormous masses of water. But the ocean is wide enogh not to rise 50 meter. ;-). Of course glaciers had been melting and were re-formed over the thousands and millions of years of earths history. So will it happen now. For our planet it is no big deal if the sea level rises by 3 meter or even by 10 meter. (AFAIK the sea level will rise by 7 meter if the polar cups will melt completely, what will not happen soon). So no Problem? Yes there is a problem. We have built a lot of cities at the coasts. And the coast-line will change. So we will have to think what to do. Building damms around the coasts. Move those places that are to low? The planet will change its face.

I am not convinced. I see a B-grade Hollywood motion picture script. You could get a job writing Al Gore's next movie.--TerryH 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I do not propose that the entire civilized world should go back to pre-industrial existance. This is what some morons are thinking. And also those who can not accept the truth (like you) are often thinking that this is the only solution. But there are many alternative solutions to fossile engery just to adress one tiny aspect. But I do not think that we can change anything. Because men are selfish and egocentric. As long as there is oil, coal and gas it will be used. So it is sure that nearly all carbonate that is fixed in fossile engergy today will come to athmosphere. And after oil, gas and coal is run out, there is even more to be blown into the air: Methaneclathrate. So you see. There is global warming. It is the fault of man. Man can not stop it. And the planet will survive. But nobody knows if man will survive. --Itsjustme 20:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hollywood hype again. But I'm curious: what forms of energy are you in favor of using? You see, I had to judge you by the association of your ideas with the same crowd that cries out, "NO NUKES! NO NUKES!" That is why I suspected you of wanting to drive the world into a pre-industrial existence. Now if I have misjudged you, then prove it to me: announce your support, here and now, for nuclear energy.--TerryH 20:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

There is more than oil and nuclear power. You can not drive a car with nuclear power. And you can not really drive a car only with electricity. It does not work well enough. But there are alternative possibilities. Some can allready be used, others have to be improved and researched further for. See what is happening in stock markets. Alternativ energy companies are the big winners since some years. Regrowing fuel from the fields, Electricity by Wind, Sun, ... In France they build now the first reactor for Fussion. The technique will be ready to use commercial (if ever) in expected 50 years. It is important to do research for alternative energies, but also to use techniques not wasting to much. You can drive a car that uses more or less fuel. You can heat a house without good isolation or isolate it and save. There are many possibilities. Just be aware of them, encourage research.

But still I do not think that there will be any change. Maybe we will reduce our emissions by 20%? So what? If one is driving a car in the direction of a wall with the speed of 100 mph and thinking about reducing speed by 20% in order not to hit the wall, that is just 1 mile ahead - what are his chances to escape? --Itsjustme 20:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, it's this simple: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat. It. Is. That. Simple. I want to see an argument which disputes either of those premises. Above, I see people quoting the rules of logic, while then presenting the weather in New Jersey as evidence to the contrary (weather.com projects a high of 67 in NJ on Wednesday, incidentally). And how very right to dismiss the findings of the world's scientists. What have they ever given us besides medicine, transportation, better agriculture, potable water, computers, communication? I'm sure they're probably just trying for more grant money. And those ones that were risking being fired by the Bush administration to warn the public, I'm sure they were just drugged or something. Here's your Little Ice Age [6], still willing to stick with that theory? Here's the change in carbon dioxide [7]. The sceintific method prevents scientists from being able to flat out say that the correlation between the two is causal, so you'll have that argument right up until the water forces you from your chair, but statistics tell us that the chance of the two be coincidental is so small it's insignificant. So just keep using your petty delay tactics. History will not remember you fondly. --Romney4king 21:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for nuclear energy, by the way. Even more so wind and solar energy.--Romney4king 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You know better than to bring in a citation from Wikipedia! This is one of our sharpest disputes with that community!

We have a new Debate Topic on nuclear energy. I welcome your comments there.--TerryH 22:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

While the image may be from Wikipedia, it is simply a graph of data from various weather sources and compiled into one chart. The numbers themselves are from a 10 peer reviewed papers and not something that is part of Wikipedia. You could go look up those papers and chart it yourself and come up with the exact same graph. --Mtur 21:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that yes global warming is happening, yes we caused it (Nuclear Weapons don't help) , and the only way to fix is to become amish.Robbo

yes global warming is evident and as it is evident we cant stop it, but we can slow it down, leave the hose and water faucet on and flood the world, then we can live longer covered in cool water, although we will die when it begins to boil