So why is global warming debatable?

[fli]

This isn't about if the globe is warming or not.
It's about the reasons why people are on so polar opposites on their stances.

Now I believe that we're creating man made global warming that differs what naturally comes. This is based on the fact that there's more research indicative to this side of the spectrum. The very few that say otherwise... well. It's too few, and the scientists look shoudy when one finds out that they were hired by a gas company and etc.

But then I see the guy who has read Micheal Crichton and believe this is a Liberal conspirancy. But for me, that's so laughable because it's more plausible (and realistic) that buinesses don't want to curb to reduce pollution because that will definetly curb profits as well.

But there's got to be more to it. Why are we even debating about global warming? Okay, let's put it this way.

There are prononents and opponents to this issue.
What are the motives and beliefs for both sides?

[fahrenheit]

The postives for believing in global warming is, obviously, a cleaner environment and less poloution.

The negatives for believing in it is that your losing a powerfull resource, I'm not sure what the limit is on hydrogen and electric powered machines but I'm pretty sure that currently fossil fueled are stronger.

Is there a reason to not believe in global warming? Not really, I dont believe that its man made because I've heard better theories about how natural it is than how unnatural it is. And I have yet to see convincing proof.

Then theres always the question of why would they lie or exaggerate this? Well besides that Al Gore probably made a pretty penny from his movie and still flies around in private jets, I think that people want to believe in a disaster. They want something they can reflect on and think wow, I'm glad I'm not there. People also want a way to feel better about what they do. I know I sound like some guru whos explaining the faults of man, I do these things to, its just an escape. But the reality is I dont know, but just because I dont know doesnt mean its right.

[cellardoor6]

Well, personally my beef with the global warming farce (yes I believe it is still an unproven, over-hyped farce) is this:

- The people who are the most caught up in the hysteria usually revolve their whole cause around having the US sign onto the Kyoto Protocol.

- Signing on to the Kyoto protocol will have a gigantic negative effect on the US economy. Growth will slow, possibly reverse, and the US will lose a lot of our stake in oil of the world by having lesser acquisition due to a desired lesser consumption and lesser emission of oil and other fossil fuels-caused greenhouse gases.

- Kyoto will be ineffectual in the first place because our reduction of emissions will be negated by the increased consumption and emissions of countries like Brazil, India, and most notably; China who are IMMUNE to Kyoto due to their "developing nation" status. China will surpass the US in emissions this year or next (which is before Kyoto would even go into effect). Yet China is entirely immune, both in the established global warming groups, as well as to the worldwide movement by the mindless masses.

So to me, it seems that there is an underlining motive when the facts are considered. Why should we damage our economy in order to reduce emissions when China's growth will entirely negate our efforts? I genuinely believe that the masterminds behind this whole hysterical, irrational movement are intentionally trying to weaken the US and strengthen China. They can't do so conventionally, so they have to use asymmetrical, macroeconomic warfare to do it. Let me explain:

- In order to pass emission cuts, the US would have to dramatically reduce consumption of oil and coal which are the cheapest and most effective ways to produce energy. This will mean more money that would normally go into the market, will now have to go into energy-producing systems and programs that are less profitable and show less benefit to the economy in the short term.

- This will mean the US will acquire much less oil and coal from foreign countries, and have much less control over world wide energy. China will come in and fill the market vacuum and pick up where we leave. This will eventually put much, in fact MOST of the worlds energy in the hands of China.

- In order to avoid emission cuts, many companies from around the world will now invest in China and base their businesses/factories there in order to sidestep growth-limiting caps on energy consumption that would exist in the rest of the world's nations. Investment that once went to the US will now go to China, increasing their economy dramatically and making many countries and companies dependent on China. (this will also further negate the entire purpose behind emissions cuts because polluters will just move to China)

- While our economy is slowing or reversing, China's will grow exponentially. And besides burning all the petroleum we don't and entirely defeating the purpose of Kyoto, they will have free reign on the countries and companies that are involved in petroleum-based energy.

- Years down the line, when people realize that humans are not the cause of global warming, it will be far too late for us to salvage our losses. China will be in a position of total control over the worlds energy, our economy will have been damaged significantly, and China, an evil, brutal, merciless police state that for some reason is immune to liberal criticism, will be the worlds superpower.

- The US is fucked, the western world is fucked, and China reigns supreme. All because some morons in our generation got caught up in a fervor that was based more on politics than reason.

Now that is my side of the argument in depth.

I guess the other side (except for the smart ones) thinks they are going to save the trees or something

[JudgeDredd]

At 5/19/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Well, personally my beef with the global warming farce is this: I'M A RACIST.

Yes, well you made that pretty clear..

"It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether the other guy loses" - House.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/19/07 05:30 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 5/19/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Well, personally my beef with the global warming farce is this: I'M A RACIST.

Yes, well you made that pretty clear..

"It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether the other guy loses" - House.

Sigh...

Great way to participate in the thread.

[Demosthenez]

At 5/19/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I genuinely believe that the masterminds behind this whole hysterical, irrational movement are intentionally trying to weaken the US and strengthen China. They can't do so conventionally, so they have to use asymmetrical, macroeconomic warfare to do it. Let me explain:

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, global warming style?

Fuck right bro. Everyone is signing Kyoto just to make China stronger? Gimme a break. If anything I would argue it is a way for European nations and other smaller, weaker countries to exert control over the United States. When you cant do it directly, do it indirectly even if its only in the form of some crappy enviromental treaty. Seems a hell of a lot more plausible than some conspiracy to bolster China at Americas expense.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/19/07 06:45 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 5/19/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I genuinely believe that the masterminds behind this whole hysterical, irrational movement are intentionally trying to weaken the US and strengthen China. They can't do so conventionally, so they have to use asymmetrical, macroeconomic warfare to do it. Let me explain:

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, global warming style?

Fuck right bro. Everyone is signing Kyoto just to make China stronger? Gimme a break.

No, not everyone. Some have other goals that are part of the overall goal of weakening the US, and breaking the grip the US has over the world's energy. Only the educated, aware people who pull the strings in the background. Most people actually swallow the "OMG save the Earth" crap, and some of those also have simultaneous, but slightly less devious motives, and simply want to "stick it to the man" (i.e. the US government and corporations).

If anything I would argue it is a way for European nations and other smaller, weaker countries to exert control over the United States.

That's part of it. It's not mutually exclusive. If America is weakened, some even in the west will see it as a benefit for them. The EU and Russia are opting for dominance as well, but they'd be helping China the most. Even bitter rivals work together to fight against the single largest rival.

When you cant do it directly, do it indirectly even if its only in the form of some crappy enviromental treaty.

Yeah because that's totally not what I already said...

Seems a hell of a lot more plausible than some conspiracy to bolster China at Americas expense.

It's more complicated, but the overall motivating factor is the weakening of the US. China's rise as a global superpower will be one byproduct, some are after that. Some are also after the rise of the EU and/or Russia. Some are just too stupid to see the implications.

If the US signs on to the global warming bullshit, we will be weakened and China will be strengthened exponentially. Some see are too uneducated in economics to see that, some see it as a worthy trade-off to save the Earth, some see it as the goal in order to sabotage the US. But the underlying goal is focused on the US economy and the US stake and influence in the world, that is the unifying factor.

[JudgeDredd]

At 5/19/07 05:36 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 5/19/07 05:30 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: "It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether the other guy loses" - House.

Sigh...

Great way to participate in the thread.

Look, what you're talking about is a new Mutual Assured Destruction, except instead of a Cold War with nukes, this'll be a Hot War with economics. You're saying Asian countries are gonna destroy the world with their success, taking America's crown. They're playing the American game, but playing it too well, but with over 2 billion more people, and if the world's going to destroy itself scrapping for every last energy resource, then America should go down fighting.

Brings us right back to the current situation: the reasons behind the Iraq war.

[ShardStorm]

I think that some people may be using global warming as a way to stop all the excess pollution that's going on by making it a more urgent and serious concern. If the idea of the Earth dying because of all the crap we put into it, true or false, makes a few more people recycle or walk instead of driving or just make an effort to do something good for the enviroment, then the ends could justify the means.

[HighlyIllogical]

Global warming is scientific fact, yet there are people who debate it for purely political reasons. If, for example, we want to discuss Kyoto, as has been done, there's one political side and one scientific side.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

Personally, I do believe in global "warming" Now, I put "warming" in quotes because the globe isn't actually warming eveywhere. At the beginning of May, us here in New England were in the middle of a cold front that brought the weather down to about 3 degrees. A week later, it was 70 degrees.

The polution that is being released is not causing as much of a warming effect as it is a weather destablization effect. The poles are getting warmer, but elsewhere is getting cooler.

Anyways, I do disagree with the people who say that cutting down on fossil feuls should be our greatest focus because you know what? It's not that important compared to the other factors. The pollution of the oceans and the deforestation of our earth are the two biggest factors that feed global warming.

Every day, we dump hundreds apon hundreds of gallons of chemicals and waste into the oceans. This kills the plants and the alge that keep the oceans (and in effect the air) clean. These plants take in carbin dioxide and release oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. If they die, all that CO2 remains as CO2.

The other factor is the trees. if the all the trees are cut down, than again, all the carbon dioxide they convert during photosynthesis stays as carbon dioxide.

Fossil feuls make for a meer 6.5% of the problem.

[scorchin-hot]

Debating global warming is one step off of debating evolution. Unless you are debasting wether or not scientists and politicians are exagerrating the effects in order to make us actual do something about it.

[TheSovereign]

At 5/19/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Blahblahblah!

Yeah, we all know global warming is a conspiracy made up by lefties so they can take over America.

[Draconias]

At 5/19/07 01:49 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: Debating global warming is one step off of debating evolution. Unless you are debasting wether or not scientists and politicians are exagerrating the effects in order to make us actual do something about it.

Global Warming is nowhere near as founded as Evolution, and the two cases are drastically different. Global Warming is primarily debateable because, regardless of the fanatical insistence of some people, it is still a very poorly understood topic and the weather predictions have been consistantly proven wrong tby a massive margin. We don't fully understand what the real effects of climate shifts will be, the full array of factors affecting the climate change, the eventual results of the climate change, whether we are truly witnessing a long-term event, and what reasonable steps might be taken to deal with the change (if we should).

The truth is that most of the Global Warming hype and propaganda is blatantly false, severely distorted, entirely worthless, or not based on fact or action. It is being used politically to manipulate people for the most part right now because no actual reasonable options exist, and this idiotic insistence on everything about Global Warming being entirely correct is killing the scientific research. We can't look at the entire situation objectively with all the politics and foolery revolving around the issue, especially when scientists attempt to look at the opposing aspects of Global Warming-- many scientists lose their careers if they attempt to challenge it.

Global Warming is a bunch of bullocks as it stands, with nothing really to do with the real situation or the real climate change. It's just a political fiasco championed by liars and hypocrites.

[JakeHero]

I'm starting to think environmentalism is a front for a liberal conspiracy of globalism, that uses this veil to try and have the UN supercede individual national rights.

[Ravariel]

At 5/19/07 03:50 PM, JakeHero wrote: I'm starting to think environmentalism is a front for a liberal conspiracy of globalism, that uses this veil to try and have the UN supercede individual national rights.

And 9/11 was a neo-con plot to curtail this liberal conspiracy, too.

[scorchin-hot]

At 5/19/07 02:29 PM, Draconias wrote:

Ok ok, evolution has a 99.99% chance of being true and global warming has a 90% chance of being caused by humans.
You people look for conspiracies everywhere, if everybody was denying global warming you would probably say they were being paid off by the oil companies so that americans would buy more gas guzzling hummers.

[stafffighter]

Well people with big money in the things that are causing global warming basically run the conservative cause and extreme right wingers are the same as any extremists in that they'll beleive what they're told and rationalize it to make themselves not feel like the rabid sheep they are.

[SteveGuzzi]

How long have people been recording weather data, and with what kind of instruments? I think modern weather stats have really only been gathered the past 200-300 years and only in certain regions, while satellite technology has only been in use for several decades. It's difficult to convincingly pin all the world's environmental "problems" on industrial-level human consumption when really, we only have a tiny snapshot of the planet's timeline to focus upon. There are many more cycles that affect the planet besides just the changing months and years, and we simply just don't understand how all these cycles fit into one another or what all their effects are.

With that being said, it's also difficult to say that humans aren't having a negative effect on the planet when you can go pretty much anywhere and find litter and trash about, or when we already know that industrialized areas have much poorer air and soil quality than other areas, or when acres upon acres of forest are cut down every second for the timber industry. Now obviously, there ARE people who are more concerned with profiteering than they are concerned with leaving things just as nice as when they first found them. There ARE people who don't care about the environment... not because they truly believe it has the ability to heal itself, but because they simply just don't give a shit. "It'll be someone else's problem," while they just sit pretty and keep stacking their chips up.

So, the debate is basically "how much of it is our fault and what do we do about it? Is there anything we CAN do, IF we should do anything about it at all?" Clearly there are people on both sides of the fence that have an agenda to push. One side wants to halt or cripple industry, while the other side wants to go full-steam-ahead. Once again, the real problem is that both sides have their heads so far up their asses as to not be able to meet at an acceptable halfway point. There are MANY things we can do as individuals AND as intranational corporate mega-conglomerations to reduce our negative impact on the environment, but OH NO, we just might not make as much money in the process. WOE IS US. :\

also, LOLOLLLL "its all about China!" LOLOLOLLL

[Memorize]

Why is global warming so debatable?

Because idiots like TheSovereign are willing waste up to trillions of dollars and resources attempting to understand it while believing the same people who once claimed the earth was doomed to Global Cooling.

[JudgeDredd]

At 5/19/07 06:19 PM, Memorize wrote: Why is global warming so debatable?

Because someone like Memorize will constantly use "Idiots", "Morons", and "Nutjobs" in any topic discussing scientific research of factual global phenomenon and it's causes.

[Calamaino]

Lets get one thing straight - this word is full of very very bad people - corrupt by greed and necessity - now another point - If 99.9% percent of the people contributing to global warming think that "one more person doesn't hurt" , then theres a serious problem.
Small victories have taken place - yes , but not enough to win the minds of those who can make a significant impact on reducing green house gasses. Because these people are driven by greed, and if someone threatens to defy their money making scheme, they obviously decline.
A wicked long lasting arguement - complicated, and exhausting. Many of these people choose not to hear.
It is due to lack of concrete evidence and ignorance

[Memorize]

At 5/19/07 08:47 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

Because someone like Memorize will constantly use "Idiots", "Morons", and "Nutjobs" in any topic discussing scientific research of factual global phenomenon and it's causes.

I could've substituted JudgeDredd for TheSovereign and it wouldn't have made the slightest bit difference as far as your intelligence went.

[JudgeDredd]

At 5/19/07 08:59 PM, Calamaino wrote: concrete evidence and ignorance..

If those people you speak of are truely waiting for concrete evidence of global warming, then i suspect that is gonna be a little late in the show to do something about it.

Denying runnaway climate scenarios based on "insufficient" concrete evidence is like denying an asteroid will hit the Earth simply because you can't see it, or understand the math involved in calculating it's trajectory.

There's no point relying on people with money who might at the end of the 11th hour claim they can singlehandedly (superhero style) save the entire planet by throwing their vast wealth at the problem (like with Bill gates fighting AIDS).

[phagmonkey]

If you feel global warming is a a problem the plz by all means get and air conditioner.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/19/07 02:25 PM, TheSovereign wrote:

At 5/19/07 05:04 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Blahblahblah!

Yeah, we all know global warming is a conspiracy made up by lefties so they can take over America.

Maybe you should actually read what I said. Because even if there isn't a conspiracy or ulterior motive, the efforts of the global warming movement will still result in a weakened America and a strengthened China.

This is all while Global warming still hasn't been proven to be caused by human behavior or preventable by a change in human behavior. But even if it was proven as some believe it is, then why aren't these people addressing China, but instead pointing their finger mainly at the US even though China is going to surpass the US before Kyoto even goes into effect?

So the whole movement behind global warming is flawed, because it all funnels into the Kyoto issue, but within Kyoto countries who will ENTIRELY negate the emissions cuts are immune.

Wheres the reason then for the US to cut emissions? To weaken us, to break our grip on the worlds energy, and to strengthen rivals and put them in a position to prevent our further superpower status.

[yinyangman]

uh its debatable because global warming has loadz of harmful effects to our world. I'm sick of the opressive heat that's bugging us.

[Draconias]

At 5/19/07 04:05 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: Ok ok, evolution has a 99.99% chance of being true and global warming has a 90% chance of being caused by humans.
You people look for conspiracies everywhere, if everybody was denying global warming you would probably say they were being paid off by the oil companies so that americans would buy more gas guzzling hummers.

You're one of the people I was referring to in my post-- Humanity still has no idea what the hell is exactly going on with climate change. It's not a "90% truth" issue, it's a "we know 1%, maybe, possibly, and then other stuff is happening or maybe not" issue. If you believe Global Warming is that strongly founded, you obviously have never even looked into the real situation at all and rely only on propaganda such as "An Inconvenient Truth" (which people on every side of the issue recognize as inaccurate and alarmist).

And "you people" is an entirely inaccurate slur to throw at me. There is no conspiracy here whatsoever on any side-- just a bunch of politicos trying to take advantage of environmental scare tactics to get power while everyone else struggles to understand a complex situation.

[JudgeDredd]

At 5/19/07 11:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: even if there isn't a conspiracy or ulterior motive, the efforts of the global warming movement will still result in a weakened America and a strengthened China.

movement = ulterior motive = conspiracy to destroy America = terrorists.

Yeah yeah, we got that part already.

why aren't these people addressing China

China IS addressing the problem. You just refuse to acknowlege it.

So the whole movement behind global warming is flawed, because it all funnels into the Kyoto issue.

No. The whole movement behind the Kyoto Agreement is flawed because it wasn't called The New-York Agreement. Typical.

To weaken [the US], to break our grip on the worlds energy, and to strengthen rivals and put them in a position to prevent our further superpower status.

The Energy Wars began with Iraq. It wasn't that America needed Iraq's oil, so much as America needed to stop Russia, India, China, Hetcetera countries, from getting their "evil hands" on any middle-east oil. Global Warming is not an environmental phenomenon. It's the onset of the coming Superpower Hot War. Totally.

[AdamRice]

Realistically, we're probably going to be better off if our greenhouse gas contribution has little to no effect on climate change. That way we won't have any problems utilizing the United States' massive coal supply to get back on easy street.