Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 Aug '10 04:37
    So the earth is warming, what is the big deal?

    Global warming has happened in the past before the industrial revolution. Man made global warming was not the case back then, so who is to say it is the primary factor causing the earth to warm now?

    Even if man's influence is the primary factor, global warming is nothing that has not happened before, so why all the panic? Life has adapted before so won't life adapt again?
  2. 31 Aug '10 04:47
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So the earth is warming, what is the big deal?

    Global warming has happened in the past before the industrial revolution. Man made global warming was not the case back then, so who is to say it is the primary factor causing the earth to warm now?

    Even if man's influence is the primary factor, global warming is nothing that has not happened before, so why all the panic? Life has adapted before so won't life adapt again?
    If the global warming is man-made or not (of course it is man-made!) doesn't matter, the effect will be catastrophic either way.
    The difference with this one is that it is very sudden. A warning of this magnitude fro such a short period of time is rare if it is natural.
  3. 31 Aug '10 04:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So the earth is warming, what is the big deal?

    Global warming has happened in the past before the industrial revolution. Man made global warming was not the case back then, so who is to say it is the primary factor causing the earth to warm now?

    Even if man's influence is the primary factor, global warming is nothing that has not happened before, so why all the panic? Life has adapted before so won't life adapt again?
    The big deal is that it is costly to adapt to a changing environment.
    If rain patterns change, we must move all our agricultural land and change the crops we grow on it. We must cater for changes in water levels and floods, meaning we must build flood barriers in new places or move a lot of people.
    If sea levels rise, we must either move most of our coastal cities and coastal communities (the most valuable land in the world) or build walls around them all.

    If global warming is man made, it is simply cheaper to prevent it if we can than to let it happen. It is a good economic decision.

    Will life adapt? I have no doubt it will.

    What you should be asking is why there is such resistance to the concept. This is because a lot of humans like to live in there here and now and not plan ahead. If you are told you have to pay for something that is only going to happen 30 or 100 years from now, some people will lie, cheat or do just about anything to avoid paying a single cent.
  4. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    31 Aug '10 06:32
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    If the global warming is man-made or not (of course it is man-made!) doesn't matter, the effect will be catastrophic either way.
    The difference with this one is that it is very sudden. A warning of this magnitude fro such a short period of time is rare if it is natural.
    The forecasts predict 'sudden' but nothing has been sudden to date.
  5. 31 Aug '10 07:02
    look, FabianFas said "of course"
  6. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    31 Aug '10 07:07
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    look, FabianFas said "of course"
    Say no more.
  7. 31 Aug '10 08:31
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So the earth is warming, what is the big deal?

    Global warming has happened in the past before the industrial revolution. Man made global warming was not the case back then, so who is to say it is the primary factor causing the earth to warm now?

    Even if man's influence is the primary factor, global warming is nothing that has not happened before, so why all the panic? Life has adapted before so won't life adapt again?
    As I see it, conservatives and libertarians confronted with the threat of global warming are a bit like religious fundamentalists confronted with the theory of evolution. No one disputes the laws of biology until they start to contradict the Bible; similarly, no one disputes the laws of physics until they start to suggest that state intervention might be desirable or necessary. Disbelief in global warming is thus a political rather than a scientific position.
  8. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    31 Aug '10 09:03
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    As I see it, conservatives and libertarians confronted with the threat of global warming are a bit like religious fundamentalists confronted with the theory of evolution. No one disputes the laws of biology until they start to contradict the Bible; similarly, no one disputes the laws of physics until they start to suggest that state intervention might be d ...[text shortened]... or necessary. Disbelief in global warming is thus a political rather than a scientific position.
    What would the temperature be now if no human had ever enjoyed all the wealth that has been experienced in the world, maybe if they'd never even discovered how to light a fire.

    What would the temperature be now?
  9. 31 Aug '10 09:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    What would the temperature be now if no human had ever enjoyed all the wealth that has been experienced in the world, maybe if they'd never even discovered how to light a fire.

    What would the temperature be now?
    Why don't you ask a climatologist? He'll probably be able to supply you with a rough ballpark estimate.

    But according to the elementary laws of physics, even a layman can tell you that it would be lower than it is now.
  10. 31 Aug '10 09:55
    It's peculiar that when it comes to issues like global warming, evolution, Big Bang, etc. suddenly almost everyone feels qualified to comment on things which take years for smart people to even begin to understand.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Aug '10 11:35
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So the earth is warming, what is the big deal?

    Global warming has happened in the past before the industrial revolution. Man made global warming was not the case back then, so who is to say it is the primary factor causing the earth to warm now?

    Even if man's influence is the primary factor, global warming is nothing that has not happened before, so why all the panic? Life has adapted before so won't life adapt again?
    People have fanned out all across the world and adapted their lifestyles to the places they live. that means living near the coasts, building homes in ice foundations in Alaska, etc. GW will not destroy humanity (in all likelihood), but it may make things really inconvenient for lots of people.

    Of course, there may be better ways to counteract global warming than reducing carbon emissions, but that's another issue.
  12. 31 Aug '10 11:47
    Originally posted by sh76
    People have fanned out all across the world and adapted their lifestyles to the places they live. that means living near the coasts, building homes in ice foundations in Alaska, etc. GW will not destroy humanity (in all likelihood), but it may make things really inconvenient for lots of people.

    Of course, there may be better ways to counteract global warming than reducing carbon emissions, but that's another issue.
    Well, since we need to start using more renewable resources anyway (which have zero or low carbon emissions) I don't think carbon emissions are a relevant issue, but rather how we can most efficiently transform our economy to be more dependent on renewable resources. Carbon emission trading is a pretty stupid, fraud-prone and inefficient way.
  13. 31 Aug '10 12:42
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    As I see it, conservatives and libertarians confronted with the threat of global warming are a bit like religious fundamentalists confronted with the theory of evolution. No one disputes the laws of biology until they start to contradict the Bible; similarly, no one disputes the laws of physics until they start to suggest that state intervention might be d ...[text shortened]... or necessary. Disbelief in global warming is thus a political rather than a scientific position.
    There is no question that GW exists. The debatable part is whether or not GW is man made. GW was a heck of a lot warmer 50-55 million years ago and man did not exist.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132417.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824110848.htm

    The earth then cooled all on it's own and the science supports that. Who is to say the earth will not cool again without any carbon taxes or other measures taken?
  14. 31 Aug '10 12:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    There is no question that GW exists. The debatable part is whether or not GW is man made. GW was a heck of a lot warmer 50-55 million years ago and man did not exist.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132417.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824110848.htm

    The earth then cooled all on it's own and the science supp ...[text shortened]... . Who is to say the earth will not cool again without any carbon taxes or other measures taken?
    You have some things confused here. The fact that there are natural fluctuations in climate does not imply that man has no influence on it, just as much as the fact that there are changes in temperature now implies (without added evidence) that they are caused by man.
  15. 31 Aug '10 12:57
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You have some things confused here. The fact that there are natural fluctuations in climate does not imply that man has no influence on it, just as much as the fact that there are changes in temperature now implies (without added evidence) that they are caused by man.
    I didn't say that man has no influence at all. I do question that GW is primarily man made though.
    If giant tortoises and alligators thrived in the arctic before man existed doesn't that fact make a good case for questioning GW as a primarily man made cause? I am reasonable to make that case, right?