Global Warming is teh TRUTH

[kisada]

look for refereed or peer-reviewed articles on scholar.google.com. they will be dense but they present the hard evidence and scientific analysis that you're looking for. additionally, peer reviews are generally subject to very, very harsh criticism from other experts before they're ever released for public viewing. you might end up not agreeing with what you read, but at the very least they've been held up to intense discretion from the people who do matter.

also i'd suggest looking up some articles there if you can find them by a professor xong at UCLA. i'm not sure he's written anything on it, but he's an expert in climatology. basically he could prove to you why al gore is the biggest imbecile on the planet when it comes to his campaign on global warming, and why it's really just a matter of natural climate variations of the world.

also you might want to see if there's anything about global warming by an economist/professor deepkak lal (yes that is his real name). if there's anyone who'd actually give a shit about the actual ramifications of global-warming policies, it's an economist. i remember a video piece from him about a conference in which a group of top experts (from climatology to economics) gathered to discuss why global warming was essentially unfounded and how drastic measures to stop it would be extremely dangerous.

too many people are hopped up on the idea that global warming is some man-made disaster waiting to happen that they forget entirely to look at the actual facts, or perhaps more accurately, totally disinterested in it.

[aurik]

What is shilling?

shill
n : a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to
stimulate the participation of others
v : act as a shill; "The shill bid for the expensive carpet
during the auction in order to drive the price up"

Generally used, 'shill' means someone who acts as an advocate for a cause who is covertly paid for his advocacy.

[Khamsin]

What is shilling?

A unit of currency.

e.g. "The man and his accomplice conned many men out of their shillings through clever shilling."

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What is shilling?

A unit of currency.

e.g. "The man and his accomplice conned many men out of their shillings through clever shilling."

That would of been "a shilling." Nice try though.

[Maxxthepenguin]

What is shilling?

A unit of currency.

e.g. "The man and his accomplice conned many men out of their shillings through clever shilling."

That would of been "a shilling." Nice try though.

No it was quite funny

[guartz]

The best video I've seen on this topic was a BBC documentary called Global Dimming.

Basically its a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario.

[Quicklet]

I wouldn't worry too much about global warming, since we'll all be wiped out by a giant asteroid hitting the earth in 2012.

[Blarg]

I wouldn't worry too much about global warming, since we'll all be wiped out by a giant asteroid hitting the earth in 2012.

Looks like someone hasn't watched the future documentary Armageddon.

[Beckwin]

A geography professor I had said Gore's presentations were absolutely worst-case scenario and didn't consider the cyclical nature of the earth's climate, but this professor was genuinely worried about O-zone depletion, something Gore doesn't spend much time on. We don't know a lot about how o-zone depletion could possibly affect us, but we do know that o-zone blocks a lot of bad stuff from coming in. Still, it's been proven that CO2 does cause the atmosphere to retain heat, but it's also been observed that globally, plant life has tended to also amp up in terms of processing that CO2 (so hey let's keep clear cutting forests, amirite? oops bad idea). There was also an era (can't remember name) where a ton of methane was released into the atmosphere from the oceans and life didn't wipe out.

When Gore talks about how cold it used to be in the 1800s at the beginning of the industrial revolution, he doesn't mention how we were coming out of a "little ice age". Also temperature recording has moved to urban centers which are subject to urban heat traps. Also the lake he shows dried up with a boat in the sand is a lake that the soviets drained.

Whether or not we actually polluting fast enough to rapidly and very harmfully raise global temperatures is still kinda up for debate, but there are other concerns related to the issue such as pollution (dirty environments and cities are bad), health issues (respiratory diseases, contaminated water, etc), ozone depletion (sup cancer etc), species preservation (various ways of ecosystem devastation is thinning/killing off species left and right), and probably others I'm missing. Not to mention greater political problems such as middle eastern oil dependence and the fact that we'll eventually run out at some point anyway.

Talk to someone in your Geography or Climatology department at your school.

[Blarg]

A geography professor I had said Gore's presentations were absolutely worst-case scenario and didn't consider the cyclical nature of the earth's climate, but this professor was genuinely worried about O-zone depletion, something Gore doesn't spend much time on. We don't know a lot about how o-zone depletion could possibly affect us, but we do know that o-zone blocks a lot of bad stuff from coming in. Still, it's been proven that CO2 does cause the atmosphere to retain heat, but it's also been observed that globally, plant life has tended to also amp up in terms of processing that CO2 (so hey let's keep clear cutting forests, amirite? oops bad idea). There was also an era (can't remember name) where a ton of methane was released into the atmosphere from the oceans and life didn't wipe out.

When Gore talks about how cold it used to be in the 1800s at the beginning of the industrial revolution, he doesn't mention how we were coming out of a "little ice age". Also temperature recording has moved to urban centers which are subject to urban heat traps. Also the lake he shows dried up with a boat in the sand is a lake that the soviets drained.

Whether or not we actually polluting fast enough to rapidly and very harmfully raise global temperatures is still kinda up for debate, but there are other concerns related to the issue such as pollution (dirty environments and cities are bad), health issues (respiratory diseases, contaminated water, etc), ozone depletion (sup cancer etc), species preservation (various ways of ecosystem devastation is thinning/killing off species left and right), and probably others I'm missing. Not to mention greater political problems such as middle eastern oil dependence and the fact that we'll eventually run out at some point anyway.

Talk to someone in your Geography or Climatology department at your school.

The earth should be heading towards a colder climate based on those cycles, thats why scientists years ago thought that the earth was entering a colder period and possibly an ice age. Because the cycle is pointing towards past cold climates but we are warming up means that the problem is worse than it seems.

Also, dying trees and plant life give off C02 so old growth forests are actually contributing to the heat and could very well be cut down and re planted with new trees that will use up c02. Young plants and trees are good, old ones are bad.

[Beckwin]

The little ice age ended in the 1850s I think. Gore references a river in london being frozen in winter then, and it never gets close to that kind of frozen now. I'm not sure when the next "scheduled" cold shift is supposed to be.

I was referring to massive deforestation where new stuff doesn't grow (and thus no new plants/trees to process CO2); cut and burn to reap timber profits and setup poorly renewable farms that drain the soil in a matter of decades.

[Blarg]

The Milankovitch theory talks about the 3 major cycles, 2 of the 3 most important ones/cycles are currently where temperatures should be colder. There really is no sudden shift in temps as the cycles are like every 100k, 25k, and 41k years, when 2 or more of the extreme points in the cycles start to coincide temps change a certain way, but that isn't happening like it should be now.

The little ice age wasn't really much of an ice age as temps were only about 1-1.5~ degrees Celsius cooler than now, so I'm not sure if those cycles had anything to do with it.

[Beckwin]

The Milankovitch theory talks about the 3 major cycles, 2 of the 3 most important ones/cycles are currently where temperatures should be colder. There really is no sudden shift in temps as the cycles are like every 100k, 25k, and 41k years, when 2 or more of the extreme points in the cycles start to coincide temps change a certain way, but that isn't happening like it should be now.

Right, but even on downward-heading parts of the cycle, it constantly oscillates.

Personally I do believe that human action can and is affecting the global climate, but my education also has me believing that we most likely aren't gonna see half of Florida under water in 50 years. I actually respect Gore and his work a lot (although he's probably making too much money off of it, but he is pretty charitable/a proactive investor), and what he presents certainly has legitimate backing in general. I guess I'm just trying to say there is conflicting evidence even among green-minded scientists who share a concern for our impact on climate as to how bad and how it will go down.

[Blarg]

You are right that there is always oscillations, and it's possible that we could currently be in an oscillation to the warmer side, but then you would have to explain why this oscillation is happening so much faster than normal. Oh well, I will let the scientists figure it out.

[Fooobos]

my favorite video regarding the ignorance of people talking about how we are facing global warming and the end of the world is upon us is from Penn & Teller's Bullshit. The episode is called "Environmental Hysteria". After watching this (which is rather hilarious) you realize how many people talk about this global warming bullshit and they dramatize it as if we were going to die in the next 50 years. Full video is not on youtube I think, but you definitely should see it if you want to learn about how wrong people are when it comes to this controversial topic.

[Vistani]

The great global warming swindle that was posted earlier is a giant pile of shit made by a guy with no knowledge of anything except how to throw forth confrontational view points backed up by pretty pictures to get ratings. If you would believe Martin Durkin, global warming is caused by volcanoes, no doubt from the gases given off by the frozen corpses of those who disobeyed the great lord Xenu.

[Mulligan]

What you could do is make the distinction between climate change and global warming caused by humans. The main arguement isn't if the world is trending warmer or not, because it most certainly is and there is alot of evidence of this. The arguement is over whether this is a result of the actions of man or a normal trend that the planet goes through. Most logical people come to the conclusion that its a combination of both. The point i would try to make is, whether humans are causing it or not, something really has to be done about it. It most likely won't effect us or our children drastically, but it definitely will generations after that.
You could think of this as someone detecting a asteroid headed for earth and theres like a 1 in 100 chance of it hitting. Now there may be a very small chance of it hitting, but wouldnt you want to prepare for it incase it was going to?
The thing that bothers me about the whole arguements is, its really about companies beings douches and not wanting to lose some of their profits to do things that will benefit everyone, whether there is global warming or not. Because how would you make money from people who can produce their own energy.

[Charla]

blah blah blah o-zone blah blah

Next time you make that argument, it would sound a lot better if you remember that it's spelled ozone. It's not a zone of some sort, it's the name of the allotrope of oxygen with 3 atoms instead of 2.

[Marsala]

Uh, how's about 2000+ scientists from all over the world?

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Edit: What the guy below me said is what I was getting at, but with more subtlety.

I would like to point out that majority does not correlate with truth, nor will it ever. Global warming is happening but to say it is because 2000+ scientists agree doesn't make it true. Many theories, accepted by the majority, in the past have been empirically successful yet extremely wrong. Ex: Geocentrism, the humoral theory of medicine, the effluvial theory of static electricity, the phlogiston theory of chemistry, the list goes on. If majority makes truth then what does that say about science's objectivity?

[Beckwin]

blah blah blah o-zone blah blah

Next time you make that argument, it would sound a lot better if you remember that it's spelled ozone. It's not a zone of some sort, it's the name of the allotrope of oxygen with 3 atoms instead of 2.

Uh, do you have a point? I spelled it correctly once ("ozone depletion"), and no one is going to get confused between ozone and o-zone in this context.

oh wait I forgot this topic was going to be published.