Merely stating that other immeasureable/unquantifyable factors could possibly be the cause of global warming does not refute the scientific evidence that points to CO2 as the most likely cause.

On a different note,

Quote :

"there is a lot of misinformation thrown out in debates like this that people latch on to and argue for to the death, when they don't really understand it at all"

4/13/2006 12:54:43 PM

Ok, phishhead, so it isn't the tilt. Congrats.

Either-way, my main concern is not that global warming is hyped, which it is. What do you intend to do about it? In all honesty, I don't fear mother nature that much. While she can be a bitch some-times, in my history book far more harm has been done to man by man than nature has mustered.

So, I don't fear rising sea levels. Even the worst predictions I've seen are only 9 feet over the next 100 years. We aren't going to lose that much ocean front property. What we refuse to lose, such as coastal cities, can easily enough be saved from nature. But there are those among us who are trying to use this "issue" to gain power over others. What they are going to do with it once they have it is what scares me. They aren't going to save us, cutting CO2 emissions to 1991 levels would only save something like 0.1degC over the next 100 years, so all it'll acomplish is a shift in power from group A to group B.

Yes, it is a slippery slope argument, which means I don't put much faith in it either. But it at least rings as a plausable threat, something 3 degrees over 100 years doesn't muster.

4/13/2006 2:47:14 PM

what do we intend to do about it?

well if we knew it was a problem we could do some things

or could we?

4/13/2006 9:02:07 PM

Quote :

"oh my god did you seriously just make a direct comparison between an entire ecosystem and a glass of ice water"

hahahahaha

4/13/2006 9:05:32 PM

Quote :

"Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted. Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions." Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm

4/21/2006 4:06:33 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-07-14-2006-warmth_x.htm

7/14/2006 3:48:26 PM

just to give text for ^:

Quote :

"First half of year was USA's warmest on record The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the USA. The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8°F, or 3.4°F above average for the 20th century. That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895, the National Climatic Data Center reported. No state was cooler than average and five states — Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri — experienced record warmth for the period. While much of the Northeast experienced extreme rainfall and flooding at the end of June, many other areas continued below normal precipitation. As of June, 45% of the contiguous U.S. was in moderate-to-extreme drought, an increase of 6% from May. Dry conditions spawned more than 50,000 wildfires, burning more than 3 million acres in the continental USA, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. "

7/14/2006 3:55:53 PM

oh, we back!

7/14/2006 4:02:14 PM

Quote :

"Worldwide, it was the sixth-warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880."

The U.S.A. != Global

That said, what do you want to do about it?

7/14/2006 4:27:11 PM

Bumping one of the stupidest threads in the history of the Soap Box.

5/15/2017 12:41:01 PM

This was an entertaining read. Thanks for the bump.

5/15/2017 2:08:41 PM

Would like to point out it's possible to want action to reduce climate change and think Paris was a global wealth redistribution scheme and bad deal for merica

6/3/2017 6:15:56 AM

I would like for you to actually explain that line of thinking. Bc I have yet to hear someone expand on the initial talking point without sounding like a dope.

6/3/2017 7:53:47 AM

From a guy on Facebook, lots of long rants so I can't copy it all..

Quote :

"That's the thing, this agreement isnt completely about climate change, but about how we go about the change. Countries agree to what they can, some have agreed to nothing, and they look to the world powers to make the change. So if they have nothing to contribute but have the right to tell someone they need to fix themselves, of course they are going to agree to it. Unless I've completely lost something when I read the agreement. I'm not saying there isn't a need for environmental change on a global scale, but when it comes down to these agreement, that then turn into the foundation for aid programs, we the people of the US end up paying for the it. A symbolic agreement without some control measures is just talk. When it's said that all countries can't be held to the same standard, I say why not(within reason)? Brazil's public transportation system is all electric or natural gas. What's stopping the rest of the world from doing that. Maybe "dodging a bullet" is a more dramatic description, but the only thing we lost on this is our presence at the party."

[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 1:40 PM. Reason : Poor people get money and all we get is a better future..]

6/3/2017 1:38:22 PM