The latest on Global warming.

[DeletedUser35877]

When over 95% of peer reviewer articles agree that global warming exists, and that it is caused by humans, there would appear to be a consensus. Then when you consider that the funding source for almost all of the articles that disagree are funded by oil companies directly, or indirectly, you should see an even larger consensus. Oil companies are pulling from the tobacco playbook from the 50s through 70s. Fund junk science and deny the existence of consensus.

 

[Freshmeboy]

Earth has a natural nitrogen atmosphere that feeds the soil..carbon dioxide is the engine that feeds photosynthesis which releases oxygen into the atmosphere...More carbon actually increases plant growth...so are you saying we should burn gas for trees...?

 

[RazorbackPirate]

The Vikings had settlements in southern Greenland for a few hundred years when it used to be a green land, not completely covered in snow and ice as we see it today. Monasteries in Scotland used to grow wine grapes and make wine which is not possible in today's climate. Neither of those eras involved humans burning fossil fuels.

Then there was the 'little ice age' on the other extreme which negatively impacted European crop yields for nearly a century.

Global temperatures on Mars increasing as it emerges from it's latest ice age.

Documented evidence that a number of peer reviewed studies have falsified data, being endorsed by scientists who can only keep themselves employed by getting more funding to keep studying this theory they have to falsify data to continue to validate. That when challenged seeks to silence the opposing view, not debate it in a meaningful way. And a media complicit with Governments looking for more ways to control people.

While the climate may indeed be getting warmer, it is not outside the natural fluctuations in temperature documented throughout recent history. Man Made? Catastrophic? No. Sorry. For me, this Emperor has no clothes.

 

[DeletedUser35603]

It has been proven without any doubts that the earth's temperature has risen + 4 degree's in a 100 years, caused by man-made pollution. Yet the Trump Environmental people have their heads in the sand. saying it is not so. with their hand out for the money from the polluters who want no change, so they can make money.

In the 1500's, the Vikings discovered grapes growing in Greenland and called it Vineland. Yet, today, the temp is lower in Greenland and they don't have a thriving climate that allows for the growing of grapes. The temp in the 1500's must have been warmer. Now its colder. So what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? What it means is that you have to ask yourself this question: What is a normal temperature and how do we know what that normal temperature is? Surely you will agree that the temperature today may or may not be the same as tomorrow. Nor will the temp be the same from week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, century to century or era to era. The temp varies. and yet, they didn't have automobiles or industrial age pollutants to lower the temp from the Viking era to today's era. Ask yourself how we can put a cork on all the volcanos that are currently active. Ask how you stop the sun from shining and warming the earth on any given day. The ask how the variation during the last 100 years is the same cause as the dropping of the temperatures from the Viking era to todays era. From the Viking era to today...was that all man-made, too? If you ignore these basic changes in the earths climate, then you ALSO bury your head in the sand.

 

[ahsay]

We know the earth is warming. We also know the earths temperature is a continual up and down cycle. We know mankind affects that cycle. What we don't know is how much.

I suspect mans role in global warming is very small. But...

Given mans history of causing environmental disasters...why can't we err on the side of caution?

 

[ahsay]

Google "Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial"

I reported your post as spam. This is to an online pay to learn site.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Thanks. Too bad your wishes comport so poorly with reality. Lol
Just watch the free video.

 

[DeletedUser26120]

I'm afraid the poster was correct. InnoGames does not allow links to pay sites or other games. Why? Got me, I just work here.

 

[Grumblenuts]

That's fine. My bad, but my intent was only to point caring people to a nice free video for a quick review / clarification of this matter / fake "debate." Why? Got me, I just live here.

 

[Grumblenuts]

We know the earth is warming.

'We" also know that it would be cooling if it weren't for "We."

We also know the earths temperature is a continual up and down cycle.

"We" have actually known that these major "cycles" normally take place over eons. By contrast the Industrial Revolution is but a blink of the eye.

We know mankind affects that cycle.

Fine admission. A credit to our public education system.

What we don't know is how much.

Actually? "We" do.. scientifically.. well within reason.. But if you were interested in reason..

 

[DeletedUser35712]

That's fine. My bad, but my intent was only to point caring people to a nice free video for a quick review / clarification of this matter / fake "debate." Why? Got me, I just live here.

You could have just showed people potholer54's videos.

 

[ahsay]

'We" also know that it would be cooling if it weren't for "We.".

Prove it? See it's crap like that that fuels the debate. We don't know any such thing. I get that probability is on your side. Co2 levels haven't been this high, maybe ever, but to say that you "know" is insane. Or do you have the skill to have visited an identical earth but without the industrial revolution? Hey maybe I need to make friends, so you can take me the next time.

"We" have actually known that these major "cycles" normally take place over eons. By contrast the Industrial Revolution is but a blink of the eye.

True

Fine admission. A credit to our public education system.

Could we be more judgmental? Preppy got to wear a uniform to H.S. ...well aint you special???

Actually? "We" do.. scientifically.. well within reason.. But if you were interested in reason..

You read my post and you didn't see any attempt at reason? Damn child...forget the boat...you missed the entire ocean.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You could have just showed people potholer54's videos.

Yes. But I think the real dispute should begin with what comprises "debate." Potholer allows for no distinction between amateurish economic / politically driven denial vs genuine scientific skepticism. The British have much more confidence in "debate" for good reason. However tragic, here the notion remains a sick joke as our Trump sycophants and obsessed major media amply demonstrate daily. Here debate is simply another platform and excuse for infotainment. To bark ones unqualified, contrarian notions. To cheaply besmirch. To never listen to expert views or scientific analysts. That's Freedumb baby!

 

[Grumblenuts]

We don't know any such thing.

That's why I put "We" in quotes. I make a genuine effort to speak for myself. No need to hide behind some fallacious numerical advantage comprised of unspecified others. I "know" meaning I'm reasonably certain as a result of prolonged scientific study. However, well over 99% of climate scientists worldwide happen to agree with me. They also claim to "know" such a thing. Contrary to another of your wild assertions..

Could we be more judgmental? Preppy got to wear a uniform to H.S. ...well aint you special???

apparently we, both you and I, proudly attended public school. What's your excuse for not knowing "any such thing" - Libertarianism?

 

[DeletedUser35712]

To never listen to expert views or scientific analysts.

Science is not about listening to what a bunch of smart guys have to say. It’s about gathering evidence through the scientific method and making a conclusion. Said conclusion in order to be valid science must be published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. Our body of knowledge on science comes from these journals, not the views of these scientists.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

However, well over 99% of climate scientists worldwide happen to agree with me.

Please cite sources to try to convince the opposition.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

Potholer allows for no distinction between amateurish economic / politically driven denial vs genuine scientific skepticism.

Because both do not understand how science works. If one denies climate change for “scientific skepticism”, they’re just rejecting the science and have no clue how robust these studies are after being reviewed on a reputable scientific journal.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

However, well over 99% of climate scientists worldwide happen to agree with me.

This is an argument from authority, which is somewhat acceptable, but in order to be convincing you have to be able to understand the concept and can cite the journal articles.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Science is not about

Preaching "Science" to people you don't know from Adam is certainly priggish.

Please cite sources

I am the source of my expressed opinions and, imho, this ain't no scientific venue, Einstein.

If one denies climate change for “scientific skepticism”,

That's slaying a strawman of your own construction. Instead, try lending strangers more benefit of the doubt at least until exposed as seriously deluded and/or ignorant. In this case, the man described all climate scientists with alternative findings as "skeptics." Nothing wrong with that. From skeptoid.com:

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.​

Indeed, skeptics apply much needed pressure to keep researchers questioning and honest rather than cocky and complacent.

This is an argument from authority, which is somewhat acceptable,

No, appeal to/from authority is never "okay" else it wouldn't be a logical fallacy. But I didn't appeal to/from any single authority. I appealed to numbers (obviously) which is a fallacy of a different color, lol.

 

[Grumblenuts]

VillagerIdiot vs Grumblenuts. Hmm,.. has sort of a ring to it