Global Warming

[ScottyGEE]

The hole in the ozone layer is in the shape of December 21 2012

[theycallmechad]

OOoohhhh, I See. That makes so much sense now. Thanks, Mr Gee!

[Aumaan Anubis]

I don't know much about global warming, nor do I want to, but neither side has provided sufficient or reliable evidence to prove the other side wrong. Neither side will be proved until one side has provided such evidence, and even after, there will be those that will question its authority, reliability, and accuracy.

Yamagushi, maybe someone will believe you if you could find evidence not coming from Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone, and I mean anyone, to edit the content. I could immediately go to the Global Warming topic of Wikipedia, and edit it to say, "There is no global warming on Earth," and there would be no one to stop me. My point, is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, no matter how much you want it to be.

This thread is becoming way too personal, especially if that quoted PM is valid. Think about what you're posting, before this becomes a flame-fest.

[TomClancey]

He's probably just fixated on the fact that when the Mayan calender ends, the world as we know it will cease to exist.

[theycallmechad]

Ah, it was a reference to the Mayan calender.
My thoughts are this: were the Mayans still around come 2012, they would make a new calender. They were pretty freakin' smart.

[Jean-Luc]

the fact that we will be in line with a black hole in 2012

Please tell me you are being sarcastic. Do you honestly think we can accurately predict that we will be in line with it?
We can't even predict day to day weather.

[SpecOp44]

Global warming is awesome. I get to save on my heating bill.

[OwnZ joO]

How about your air conditioning?? Or do you live in a cold area that's not too bad with global warming lol?

[DoorM4n]

That was ridiculous. New thread time... TURAL

[Tural]

Religion has absolutely no place here. It's worse than the political discussions.

[DoorM4n]

If I was only aware of THAT I would not have typed out a ****n paper on my own opinion. That really blows my mind.

[Tural]

Where have you been the hundreds of times we've barred religious discussions in varied venues?

[DoorM4n]

I don't know man. I guess off in space somewhere. Whatever.

[Yamagushi]

Ok ive grown bored of arguing with u ppl. As a final statement Ill say do some research and actually have an intelligent opinion. Simply saying your for or against something or just agreeing with something you know nothing about doesn't make for a good opinion towards something. In all this all you could do is say its natural cause its happened before. Even natural things have explanations such as an earthquake is plates under the surface of the earth that slowly move and eventually collide with one another. None of you that argued it was natural could give a logical explanation for any of your views. Modern science is quite advanced and we would very likely be able to prove it as natural if it was. There was a comment that someone thought it unbelievable that we would be able to predict when we would line up with a black hole, I however don't see that as unbelievable. For the person questioning that look up quantum physics, We got people studying things like that every day. Its actually pretty interesting shit if your intrigued by space and black holes and such. Anyway I'm done arguing nobody has anything useful to say.

[Kirk]

I don't know much about global warming, nor do I want to, but neither side has provided sufficient or reliable evidence to prove the other side wrong. Neither side will be proved until one side has provided such evidence, and even after, there will be those that will question its authority, reliability, and accuracy.

Yamagushi, maybe someone will believe you if you could find evidence not coming from Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows anyone, and I mean anyone, to edit the content. I could immediately go to the Global Warming topic of Wikipedia, and edit it to say, "There is no global warming on Earth," and there would be no one to stop me. My point, is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, no matter how much you want it to be.

This thread is becoming way too personal, especially if that quoted PM is valid. Think about what you're posting, before this becomes a flame-fest.

You are, however, wrong.

#1, from a non-religous standpoint, there is more evidence for global warming than not. If there was not as much evidence as there is, it would not be such a big deal. I'm not entirely sure why you're making your point when you admit yourself you don't know much, not to mention you say you don't want to learn anything, which really shows something. :/

#2, People beat on Wikipedia far too much. There was someone who created that article, and that's exactly the reason why it can be correct. People DO care. Do you have any reason to go on there and change the articles? Most of the time, no. Most of the time you'd do it is with a friend, which'd greatly reduce the chances... And secondly, are you going to change really minor things around like dates, from 2001 to 2003? No, you're going to say abe lincoln was a british philosopher, which, assuming you're not in the womb, is obviously incorrect.

I would, however, be sure to check on multiple sources. I'd also probably not cite Wikipedia in any major papers i'm writing, not necessarily because of incorrectness, but simply because people see wikipedia from biased eyes. There's also the chance that the info might not be 100% correct, such as the person adding some opinion into it. You just have to be careful.

[theycallmechad]

Ok ive grown bored of arguing with u ppl. As a final statement Ill say do some research and actually have an intelligent opinion.

It seems to me that you consider any opinion that differs from yours not "intelligent." You have to be one of the most closed-minded people I've ever known of. No matter how you look at it, global warming is still a THEORY, nothing more. True, there is evidence supporting it, but if you know anything of the "scientific method," you will know that it is indeed still a theory (unlike, say, the LAW of gravity).

"The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences (phenomena) of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information (data) collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory."
http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/ea ... method.htm

Get off your high horse and speak of things as they are, not as you wish them to be.

[warlord]

Something just crossed my mind...if we are the sole reason for the climate rising now why didn't the steam age where multitudes more carbon dioxide was let out into the atmosphere make little to no effect on our climate?
we even had fire shooting out everywhere which would surely increase the earths temperature.
just a thought no doubt no one will even read what ive said.
Oh and yamagushi can you say "you've been owned?" http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0233.html

[SpecOp44]

Anyway I'm done arguing nobody has anything useful to say.

Including yourself.

[ScottyGEE]

Anyway I'm done arguing nobody has anything useful to say.

Including yourself.

In a way I agree.

Here's the situation. The dude who started this topic asks for opinions and you come in here aggressively trying to get your opinion/point accross. That's not all bad. But when you turn around and say that we have nothing interesting to say that's when one of my eyebrows raises into my hair...

By reading over this topic, you have only argued one point. c02 is bad, and has contributed to...No, caused global warming (but then you turn around and say NOT 100%!!! but not give any other points). Not only have people said their opinions on the matter (being ontopic) but they've had counter arguments to yours. This gives two sides to the argument (as there always is). You know what should happen then? instead of arguing the same thing over and over like you have, you should have gone for more than one source and argued different arguments in an attempt to perhaps allow us to see the light. But instead, you aggressively post the same point over and over using wikipedia as your ONLY source.

Then you turn around and say we are the uninteresting ones? No, quite the contrary I say its you, the person who only has one point and cannot accept other peoples stances on the matter. As people have said, its only a theory, however unless its hype and the potential for large business profit there will be differing opinions.

So please, don't turn around and say such a thing because people are arguing against you. Bring up more points, include more sources, perhaps not say everything is fact and that we're STUPID (you say our points are ridiculous) not believing you and maybe you won't be viewed the way you have because of this thread.


I am also very concerned with this PM. Lashing out in such a way especially because of some meaningless political group is not smart here. I'd like to see if its true (pix), that kind of stuff isn't be tolerated here.

You'll also notice the "we" and "our" use here. That's because I agree with some of the points made about it not being true. However, I need to do my research before making a post in this topic.

I also notice that I am repeating myself with certain arguments. This is hypocritical as I'm using it to argue against you. However my thoughts still stand. This text is small to point it ou as its not important and not really relevant. It also makes me kool and makes Tural love my muchly

[Yamagushi]

I did in fact only state one point. Because it is the point I believe and agree with. However it was the only point anyone stated, like I said all that was argued against me was opinions with no reasoning for them.

I don't consider myself closed minded, Its just nobody has given anything to back up there side. I don't even care if u link to or post any proven evidence. Just tell me what you know about it. So far its all been simple to the point answers with no insight to back any of these decisions. If you believe its natural id love to hear why you believe that but "its happened before" isn't a reasonable answer. We are quite advanced in science and there would likely be influences/reasons/signs for such a natural occurance, if there are I know of none but would be very interested in hearing them.

I would really like to hear other sides of the argument however none have been given. This is at least the third time i've said this but if you believe its something other than what ive said fully go through your theory.

Its like the elections if this was a post on who to vote for and everyone just picked a random person running and posted it it would be pointless. More info is needed than a simple 1 sentence answer. Tell why you make your decisions. Not just what ur decision is.

P.S. As for the PM it is indeed real however it was a response to an arrogant post made about democrats earlier in this post. I am a democrat and I took it quite offensive that someone would dare cast blame our way for our troops dying in Iraq. Republicans started this war. People aren't dying for me there dying for a paycheck and so greedy republicans can save 12 cents on a gallon of gas.