A debate about climate change(Human cause it or the natural itself?)?
822595
Everything on Earth affects the climate, including its human inhabitants. Just by breathing we add carbon dioxide to the air, which in turn affects climate patterns. And, of course, humans create machines that add pollutants to the atmosphere and we disrupt the climate every time we drain a swamp or otherwise make nature do something different.\n\nHowever, the Earth's climate has undergone many dramatic changes over its four-billion-year lifespan, and none of them had anything to do with humans. So, while humans are a part of the process, climate change is itself a natural occurrence.
100299
>>> info saying global warming is not a big deal.\n>>> I got stuck on the side saying global warming does not\n>>> exist.\n\nHang on, are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or are you arguing that it's not a big deal? Those are two totally seperate arguments with no relationship to one another.\n\nIf you are arguing that it's not a big deal then I second the recommendation of Lomborg. \n\nIf you are arguing that it doesn't exist then Lomborg is worthless since he is one of the most vocal supporters of global wamring the world has ever seen. Lomborg is quite convinced that it exists and goes to lengths to convince others that it exists. He just doesn't  see it  as a catastrophe.\n\nAs you can see these are two totally separate issues, and you really need to tie down what you mean before you can even start your research.\n\nIf you really are attempting to argue that global warming does not exist you have an uphill battle.  AFAIK all scientists accept that it exists. The only argument is how much of it is caused by humans and what the efcets will be. You are really knobbled if you have to arguee against the entire scientific community. I can't believe your teacher would set this up.\n\nBut if that is the case then you are really restricted to a few essentially crank websites. I've provided a link to one of the best ones out there, but it's still not terribly scientific or accurate.\n\nGood luck and return if you need more help. And you're gonna need if you are arguing that global warming doesn't exist.
139168
Climate is variable. Always has been. The question is, is there currently an anthropogenic component to the variation?
746442
First let us understand at what cost or price the humanity has actually progressed-It has progressed at the cost of the Nature-which is God manifested.We have grown and developed only with the help of Nature otherwise we would have not even survived.\n\nThe environment change is a man made-we are destroying forests,killing birds and animals and other vegetation with the result that we are asking the rain God to withdraw supply of water on this mother earth-which is directly affecting the natural growth of vegetation,beauty,pure air and all the seasons to appear in their full swings.The earth is becoming hotter day by day and the Nuclear and other tests are only adding death like environment for the whole world.THIS MUST BE CHECKED FORTHWITH AND NATURE SHOULD BE USED ONLY FOR OUR SURVIVAL AND NOT FOR SELFISH ENDS.\n\nThe social conditions have changed  faster than expected.God has created only human beings and not rich and poor or big or small or any religion or any any other factor which has divided the human race on this earth.These are again all man made as per the convenience or the look of a better or a bigger one.WE SHALL HAVE   TO EVOLVE A WAY TO BRING ALL SOCIETIES CLOSER TO ONE ANOTHER FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING,LOVE AND BROTHERHOOD TO SURVIVE OTHERWISE FIGHTING WITH ONE ANOTHER ON THE BASIS OF CAST,CREED OR COLOUR WILL ONLY LEAD ALL OF US TO GRAVE ONLY\n\nThe poor Nations remain poor for want of resources and other facilities.Well if more developed Nations who have better resources can help them without thinking of complete return and also help them improve infrastructure as friendly human beings,I personally feel LOT OF ECONOMIC BACKDROPS CAN BE IMPROVED AND TAKEN CARE OF TO BRING PEACE AND HARMONY IN THESE COUNTRIES LEST THEY PERISH\n\nLast but not the least religious disharmony is the most serious and calling for an immediate solution for world peace and harmony.We can not let the peace and harmony be at the stake of a few mad headed people in the name of religion to take the whole peace to a ransomeWE HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY PUT AN END TO SUCH CANCER LIKE ELEMENTS FROM THE WORLD FOR MAINTAINING PEACE ANMD LASTING HARMONY.\n\nLET US THEREFORE,ALL GET TOGETHER,PUT AND END TO ALL THE DIFFERENCE AND TAKE THIS WORLD AS ONE,ONE RELIGION,ONE SOCIETY AND ONE ECONOMIC STAND IF WE REALLY WANT TO LAST OTHERWISE FIGHTING WE SHALL ALL PERISH IN NO TIME--LET US THEREFORE,WAKE UP,BE UP AND DOING.
37393
No one really knows if the apparent warming we are observing is natural, a secular increase due to various natural processes. It could be due to changes in the solar constant, it could be because of complicated nonlinear effects we do not understand, it could be that we are in an interglacial period in the Milankovitch cycle, etc. \n\nHowever, it also could be anthropogenic in origin. Evidence is mounting that it might be, but it is not yet certain.
1145738
Global warming is really a fact that should be considered serious.\n\nQuestion:\n1. Don’t you feel the atmospheric temperatures around you are higher than the past?\nSupporting Fact:\nAt least there is slight increase in it. Factor: rise of few Celsius degrees in temp.\n\nQuestion:\n2. Is not the fact spoken about glaciers being melted down to water, thus increasing the sea levels drastically? \nSupporting Fact:\nIslands like Maldives are at risk!\n\nQuestion:\n3. The emission of so many vehicles, factories using fossil fuels is simply great evidence for this cause, yet there are many other factors to be mentioned. \nSupporting Facts:\nCarbon Dioxides, Carbon Monoxide are certain (green house gasses) harmful elements released to the open air. These gasses are not engaged in the purification act, supported by the greenery (Trees), due to reducing population. In result these harmful gasses break the ratios of 20% or so Oxygen content in the atmosphere, and may cause serious damages to human life.\n\nAll these consequences will lead to one place, that’s called the “Climate Change”. Then we’ll really remember the days we were merely talking about Global Warming!\n\nSuggestion: watch the theatrical block buster film, “The Day After Tomorrow” for some knowledge about the situation.\n\nWish You All the Best!\nGood Luck!\n\nand check the link below, i couldn't go through it at a stretch.
1073265
The defense is to ignore it as a problem that they can do anything about. The most common argument that you will hear is: "The global climate has been changing throughout its history." We do have more than 100 years worth of data, and yes, there has been major climatic changes in the past.\n\nThere is some disbelief that human actions can affect anything as big as the global climate, too. Arguments that take science into consideration are the best ones, but they're the least often used. Usually, it's just this general statement of disbelief that is given.\n\nLet's take the previous poster's example of the Mars ice caps melting, and how we haven't been studying the Earth's climate for long enough. First of all, there is no statement about how this is beyond the normal seasonal fluctuations of Mars. After all, the ice caps wax and wane according to the seasons. Now, consider how long we have been studying Mars too. Have we studied Mars sufficiently long enough to be able to decide what is or is not normal seasonal changes for Mars?\n\nAnother claim to helplessness is to say, "This is the only choice that we have - without a fuel source, economies would collapse." This argument relies on the fact that there are no viable alternative fuels. However, I would like to see a little less helplessness, too. If we don't have another source of fuel for getting to work, why doesn't the government fund research into alternative fuels? Before you say there is no money, think about how much money we spent on Iraq. Wouldn't it have been better spent on research & development of alternative fuels? If we are no longer dependent on foreign oil, then we are not funding terrorists.\n\nAnother tactic is to attack people on a personal level, to distract attention away from the problem. In truth, it's difficult for the individual to make big changes in the world, and that is why for things like that, the government has to step up to the plate.\n\nHowever, I do not want to be mistaken for towing a party line. I do not limit this rule for Republicans or Democrats. While the Democrats have been slightly more environmentally friendly, I would like to see somebody more radical from either party come into office - you know, somebody who is willing to try to fix the problems that the government is presented with, both on a national and an international level.
1002673
Yes and No. \nI think a course or two in which students engage in discussions about climate change, conscientious consumerism, fuel emissions, alternative power sources, pesticides, genetically modified food, human/environment interaction and its role in child health/development, the EPA and what it does/does not do, lobbying groups, waste/recycling, and other "hot topics" would be benefitial to all of us, but I don't think the courses should label themselves as explicity pro-environment/environmentalist. \n\nThe facts should speak for themselves. Give people the chance to learn about the environment, how it impacts their lives, and what their choices are, and I believe they will choose the right (the green/pro-environment) path.
397342
Yes. read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell. You will be amazed with truths about climate change and environmentalism.\nSome examples are: "Environmentalists not so long ago believe the earth was cooling"\nEarth day is a ridculous holiday. Go outside and have some fun.
133788
there is no unbias news sorce they are all liberal and it has been proven. but my opinion is it dosent exist. because think about it we are coming out of an ice age. it makes sense dosent it? fact: there have been ice ages. fact: there is a lot of ice in ice ages. so if you know about water then you know the same amount of it is here that was here when the earth began so literally it is dinasor piss. well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice ( i know i live in minnesota and it is known that it was fully covered with ice.). so where is all the water? in ice bergs, glachiers, ect. so it would make sense that to leave an ice age most things would melt right? so they are still melting they will finish melting and cover parts of the world, then it will slowly freze causing an ice age. why would humans make that big of a difference? we are insignificant to the world.(everyone in the world could fit in texas and it would only be as densly populated as ny city). so our vehicles and combustable engines couldent have that big of an effect. but you say "what about the ozone thinning?" well i am not saying it hasent but it was because of the cfc's(cloral floral carbons) which broke up the ozone by atatching to ozone molocules. but the cfc's are no longer around. the ozone is healing itself as it is meant too. ther was no real hole only a thining which is also bad. but now it is closing up and returning to normal. if you think that the co2 we produced cant be good well think about it it isnt that mutch and while the earth was cooling after beieng created it released tons of co2. so what people will notice in the next 1-9000 years is it will warm up but in that time it will also cool down and eventually there will be an ice age. just because the great human race is here dosent mean that the earth will stop having ice ages as it has done by its self for billoins of years. think about it.
35095
Probably not. In my humble opinion, humans ultimately play a very insignificant role in the processes that shape this planet, when viewed from a geologic time-scale. After all, more than 90% of all species on this planet were extinct long before hominids evolved. The planet has experienced global warming much more extreme than the present warming trend, and forces such as plate tectonics and isostatic rebound are contributing to problems like the subsidence of the Louisiana coastline probably more so than man's changes in the drainage of the Mississippi River. There is evidence that the modern coastal subsidence of the US Gulf Coast is related to isostatic rebound from the glaciers melting in North America over 10,000 years ago. That is how slow many of these processes work. The climate of this planet has never been static, nor has the shape of the continents. Natural events like climate-changing volcanic eruptions, earthquakes (which build mountains that ultimately change weather patterns), catastrophic tsunamis, meteorite impacts, erosion, catastrophic floods, landslides, glaciation, all have much more impact on a geologic scale than man has done. Even catastrophic oil-spills occurred as a result of natural processes long before man built a supertanker. This planet might not even be habitable by humans if not for the warming effect of radioactive decay within the earth, and over geologic time, that will gradually decline. Light and heat from the sun is something we have no control over that will certainly change over time. Of course, none of this excuses man for damaging the planet with deforestation, greenhouse gases, habitat destruction, etc., but we all need to recognize that even our best efforts may not affect the long-term changes that are taking place around us almost unseen due to the slow progress of these changes. We are going to have to work at not becoming just another part of the fossil record and our ability to adapt to climate change is probably the only thing that will allow the human race to survive long-term. This is just the opinion of this geologist.
240818
I am very concerned with the rash of natural disasters that are happening and can only really attribute them to global warming. Our planet has the ability to "rebuild" the ozone, but not quickly enough at the rate we are depleting it. I think as Americans and as a consumer nation, we need to get on the clue train about how much we are harming our world by car emmisions and we need to switch to a clean alternative. It's possible, but we fear change.
854858
Short Answer: Carbon dioxide.\n\nLong answer:\nGlobal warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.\n\nThe prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".\n\nThe increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. The first speculation that a greenhouse effect might occur was by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1897, although it did not become a topic of popular debate until some 90 years later.
732743
Heres an idea: Our world is becoming a more dangerous place as global warming continues.(Then speak a little more about the sentence, next paragraph =causes, next paragraph= effects, final=restate the first sentence) Good Luck!
1178480
Blame it on global warming.
1016844
Mission Impossible:  HONESTY AND TRUE REPRESENTATION PLEASE.  As far as issues goes, lets see if the pres. can have the balls to say YES there really is GLOBAL WARMING!!  Not necessarily do anything about it but at least acknowledge it does exist would be nice.
426303
That's a pretty silly question.\n\nI don't know any Libertarian that claims to be stupid.\n\nIn fact, I'm a Libertarian. And even though I am open to the possibility that current climate changes could be part of a larger natural climactic cycle, I still feel that global warming is most likely due to the effects that humans and pollution have on the environment.\n\nAs a Libertarian, there aren't very many things at all that I feel should trump personal freedom and personal choice, but if I had to pick one thing to trump those, it would definitely be protecting the environment from permanent, irreversible damage.