Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

It's El nino man......She's back and she's PISSED!

 

All anyone has to do is look around at the weather patterns for the lat few years to see if there is a drastic weather shift happening.

The question of it it is manmade or not though is quite simple. I've said this before, and people took it wrong, but it is the most appropriate answer to this line...

If you don't think man has been harming the environment, go suck on a tail pipe for a while....

AND NO, that is not a suggestion like, "go kill yourself", what it is, is the quickest demonstration of what we are doing to the planet. We are a closed eco-system and if we release something into the air, no matter what it is, it is not going to just disappear. It will disperse through the whole atmosphere, changing the chemical makeup of the planets biosphere. The long term effects of this, can be tested, to see what those things do at a higher concentration level... ie, sucking on a tail pipe.

 

Yeah, humanity is harming the environment. Doesn't mean we're causing this particular shift in temperature.

 

So, let's not worry about the damage we are doing, after all there is no hard proof that there is a direct link...

The problem with that theory, is if the argument that we are not the cause is accepted, and therefore, we don't have to change anything is wrong, we, along with the rest of the life on the planet die.

If the argument that we are having an effect is believed and we should try to minimize this as quickly as possible is wrong, the planet still gets healthier.

Seems like a simple bet to me...

One way you're risking everything you are, and may be, as well as any future generations of everyone on being sure that we are not related to this particular shift.

The other way, you are risking some hardships and confusion during a re-focusing phase of our civilization.

 

You can play a foolish game of chicken involving the survival of your planet if you like, as long as you don't risk my planet.
:toetap05:

 

No one buys Pascal's wager in relation to the existence of God; why should anyone accept it here?

 

It only looks like Pascal's Wager to those who are not able to understand the science.

 

god??? lol

You want to bring god into this??

Take your pick from any of them, and then answer this... "Who are you, to be damaging their creation"...

Now, if you want to come back to the discussion of something real.

The air we breathe, is a lot more significant then the supposed afterlife of some religious cult.

 

Evidence

 

Pascal's Wager is exactly what you both described.

It doesn't seem like you even know what Pascal's Wager is...

That's not evidence.

 

No, one is about the existance of an afterlife andhedging your bets on it;

The discussion regarding our environment is about our actual lives, on a day to day basis, air, water, food, health, environment.

That is not something that cannot be obtained through reason... in fact, it is easy to prove it, go suck on a tail pape of a running combustion engine and tell us what the results are. Either it has no effect, in which case, you could have a point, or it will kill you, proving beyond any doubt that we are putting chemicals into the environment that are harfull.

To continue about the point of it not being the same as pascals wager, I'll re-quote the last line of it;

There is most definitely a cost to making the bet for a healthy future, quite a dramatic one in terms of shifting world wide economies, production and consumption habits. People will lose jobs, companies will go bankrupt and so on... On the other side of it, there is the same to be gained... jobs will be created, companies will form where there was no place for them before...

But the gain... is most definitely a gain... its one of life for our children and grandchildren.

Notice all these things are concrete examples, not mythological assumptions of something that may or may not exist in some future 'afterlife'?

If you can't grasp that difference at this point, there is nothing further I can say to you about it.

 

Of course I see the difference. It's a comparison, so we're looking at the similarities. Pascal's Wager states that whether God exists or not, we may as well act like He does; you're saying that whether man-made global warming is real or not, our best bet is to act like it is. Whatever underlies it is not necessary to the comparison.

And notice again that I did say we're harming the planet to some degree. I just said that in all likelihood we're not causing global warming. Try to keep up. Telling me to suck on a tailpipe, as cool as it may sound to you, is both a gross oversimplification of a very complex question and a completely nonsensical argument being that we're talking about a specific change occurring in the climate; we're not debating whether exhaust fumes are harmful.

 

Apparently, oversimplifications are what you prefer.

At no point in time have you seen me say 'global warming'. I make a point of not using that actually, because it is, get this, a vast oversimplification...

We, humanity have done more damage to this planet in the last 200 years then has been done by all of mankind up until then. There are global climate shifts that are happening, right now... not at some distant and inknown point in the future. Extremes in weather are becoming more extreme as the planet tries to come back to a ecological balance. Unfortunately, as it is trying to find it's balance, we are pumping even more and more chemicals into the air, keeping a constant atmosphere of change as balance is sought.

When people start making comments like, volcanoes have pumped x amount of this and that into the atmosphere, and this affected that and see look we arent so bad after all. It is all just a screen to hide the damage we have done, and more importantly, are still doing on an ongoing basis.

You know those examples that I mentioned, volcanoes and such? Check to see what the timelines on these things are. Then consider that the damage we have done, has been in less then 200 years, and the damage done by natural events like volcanoes are measured back as far as possible, and then compared to the 200 years we've been at it...

Oh, but I guess thats another example of... what was that... "Whatever underlies it is not necessary to the comparison".... whats time matter anyway.... lol

 

Are you assuming that the dramatic increase in CO2 in our atmosphere has zero effect on the warming trend we are seeing?

 

CO2 will always rise, naturally or unnaturally. We will speed up Global Warming... eventually.

But this is the reality. Everything in the universe takes a long time. Planetary change takes millions upon millions of years. The idea that we could speed up the process to the point that in 50 years time we will see a difference is very ignorant.

From what I remember, Britain experienced what they described as a mini ice age is the 80's, temperatures dropped dramatically. But then they rose again, climate change I think can be sometimes just relative, but in this day and age we are worried everything may be irreversible.

I'm not going to dig up the facts, but they know for all the ice that is melting in the caps, there is plenty more new ground being covered. These 'scientists' seem to forget that bit.

When it comes to climate change the powers that be are acting like a bunch of sensitive little children. Only look at the negatives, but never focusing on the positives which support the idea change is not happening at this current time. Eventually they will discover a way to tax people more so on pollution maintenance and let's be honest- that's why the Copenhagen Summit and whatever else is happening.

 

A comparison is not an assertion that two things are exactly the same: it's an assertion that they share certain qualities. What you said shares important qualities with Pascal's Wager. Why the fuck are you nitpicking this stupid little point?

As to everything else you said, again, it doesn't address the issue of global warming. I don't dispute that pollution is happening, but I don't buy that it's causing anything that drastic. Your poor logic and, even worse, your overly-aggressive attitude aren't doing much to convince me. Is there anyone around who can discuss a subject with someone they disagree with without acting like such a little bitch? I'm serious. Why does everyone need to be so emotional? Use logic. Reason out an argument and try to debate the point instead of just getting offended and typing up the first thing that comes to your mind and posting it without even seeing if it makes sense.

Maybe not zero effect, but I see no reason to believe it has a dramatic one.

 

Show me your logic and reasoning and I will address it.

So far, all you have done is criticize other peoples ideas and proof on the subject.

Anything that is said in this thread, you are going to reply the same way you have... You don't believe it. You have chased every person away who would like to discuss it by making it clear from the start, that you have no place in your mind to accept anything that says other then we aren't responsible for 'this particular shift'.

Why don't you back up, and think before you continue down this path. On one hand, you admit we are damaging the planet, and yet you think that has nothing to do with this one shift... maybe everything else, but gods no, not this one....

There is more C02 in the atmosphere now, then ever before. The increase is directly linked to the time frame that humans started 'developing' heavy industry.

This is not guess work, or theory or supposition, it is fact. The history of the planet can be read through evidence left in the planet itself, in the soil, in the ice, and in the plants themselves. Do you disagree with this?

Increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere are directly related to the heat retention of the planet. Is this the part you disagree with?

Perhaps it's the whole idea that a mere human (or even 7 billion of them) could effect something as large as the planet that you have issue with.

Now, if you answer this with anything other then logic and reasoning, you can be sure I am going to attack you "like a little bitch".

 

Not true. CO2 production from natural sources used to be well balanced with CO2 consumption by green plants, so the atmospheric concentration levels of the gas always fluctuated within a stable and predictable range.

 

Fire away then. I've answered your questions already.

 

No you haven't, but don't worry about it, you met my expectations