/sci/ - Science & Math

Your post seems to imply that you're arguing that people do not have a role in Climate Change.

>>5354781

This is like the evolution vs creation debate.
The other side has no evidence, it isn't a side.

The last big study funded by Oil companies and lead by a climate skeptic turned out to favor man-made global warming.

I don't understand. What do you think the cause of global warming is?

>>5354783
Sorry, perhaps I should be a bit clearer

I'm not arguing people do not have a role in climate change, i'm arguing it is A) not a significant role, and B) even it man-made global warming were true, given our current technology and financial situation, America couldn't possibly do anything to help it.

>>5354785
Ah! My first taker! Well, while I hate creationists, I will not so easily submit to this whole "The other side has no evidence" in terms of a cyclical global warming! I think we both know that this isnt in fact true!

>direct result of CO2 emissions

but its not only CO2

>>5354792
Solar variation, volcanic activity, blargh

stuff that's easy to disprove, unfortunately

Instead ill focus on disproving your theories! :D

>>5354796
I completely agree! Many think it is, as i'm sure you'd be surprised!

>>5354793

on argument A you are going to be absolutely crushed by the opposing side, the amount of scientific evidence is astounding

on argument B you might be able to go somewhere, if I were you i'd focus more on that

happy trolling at your debate OP

>>5354797
Why do you accept evidence that's easy to disprove

Are you playing devil's advocate or what?

>>5354797
>Solar variation, volcanic activity, blargh

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

This thread belongs on /pol/ where people argue opinions and nonsense.

On /sci/ we discuss science, and the science is clear. There is no argument to be had.

>>5354793
>I'm not arguing people do not have a role in climate change, i'm arguing it is A) not a significant role, and B) even it man-made global warming were true, given our current technology and financial situation, America couldn't possibly do anything to help it.

That is quite simply wrong. I'm not going to argue with you on a point that's been argued to death. Debate isn't worth anything on its own merits. It's only a worthwhile use of time when there is an issue that requires resolution. This issue has already been resolved.

>>5354793
>I'm not arguing people do not have a role in climate change, i'm arguing it is A) not a significant role

You're joking, right? There is monumental evidence pointing to the opposite

>>5354799
I know! This is why my theories suck, but my point is that yours suck as well! There are better theories, but i'm not interested in them!

>>5354803
I agree! This is why I'm quite happy I'm the only one on my team discussing our side, while the other team dedicates 4 of their best speakers to it! I promise, I will still crush them, despite whether their theories are foolproof or not!

>>5354802
Perhaps you are right, i'll try there next!

>>5354801
Technically, yes. But, I'm always interested in trying to prove impossible points!

>>5354800
I doubt i'll be crushed, you may actually be surprised if you have seen both sides of the debate, but yes disproving the other side will be much easier than proving my side.

>>5354793
> even it man-made global warming were true, given our current technology and financial situation, America couldn't possibly do anything to help it.

Why such a little bitch America? When did you decide to not stand up for yourself and spit defiance in the face of adversity?
Well, if you wanna take all this lying down like the sissy you are that is fine, just don't get in the way of humanity taking charge of it's own mess and trying to right things,mmmmmkay.

>>5354806
To rebut, i'd say there is monumental evidence pointing directly to it! If you only see what you wish too, of course you'd think that!

>>5354808

>I doubt ill be crushed

have fun in your debate while your opponent reads off an endless list of scientific articles and studies that conclusively link global warming and human activity

>>5354808
Then this is a sort of assignment where you're placed on a side and have to argue for it despite whether you believe it or not?

>>5354808
>Technically, yes. But, I'm always interested in trying to prove impossible points!

This is why /lit/ is full of the worse kind of people.

>>5354819
On the contrary! We spend billions more on renewable energy than we do on non-renewable! It's quite a shame, as renewable energy doesn't even come close to 10% of our total power usage! I suggest there be a direct correlation of government funding and the amount of power the source can provide

>>5354821
For every study they read, I'm sure I could read a study of my own! It would be quite embarrassing if my opponents could only defend themselves with studies!

>>5354822
I chose this side for the sole reason of not believing it!

>>5354828
I've never been, but i'm sure it's a wonderful place

Hi OP. I am willing to indulge you.

First, I want to start with some questions.

1) Do you believe that the earth is currently undergoing a global increase in average temperature?
2) How familiar are you with the science of climate change? Specifically, are you familiar with the theories only, or the evidence that is used to form the theory?
3) For what reason are you debating this issue?
4) Do you believe the burden is on me to prove anthropogenic climate change is real? What kind of evidence would you expect, if this were the case?

If you answer these questions sincerely I will happily engage you in debate for as long as you want to keep talking.

>>5354834
>For every study they read, I'm sure I could read a study of my own!

this is so eerily similar to the evolution vs. creation debate

>>5354834
>I chose this side for the sole reason of not believing it!

You made this inexplicably difficult on yourself

>>5354840
> infantile cartoon

>>5354838
1) Yes
2) Somewhat familiar, undoubtedly more familiar than my opposition in this upcoming debate. Most likely the theories, I find the evidence boring and contradictory!
3) Entertainment! And 35% of my grade!
4) I actually do! I didn't think someone would bring this up. Unfortunately, there is no amount of evidence you could use to convince me! I would expect you however to throw many graphs, charts showing the correlation between temperature and CO2, things i've seen plenty of! Show me something interesting, perhaps!

>>5354839
It does, it's unfortunate but true

>>5354840
Why take the easy route!
Plus, I hate those dirty tree hugging hippies

>>5354834
>It would be quite embarrassing if my opponents could only defend themselves with studies!
>I chose this side for the sole reason of not believing it!

Debate isn't some motherfucking sport. It's not something you should do for "fun" or other such bullshit. It should be won or lost based on the quality of the position and the evidence to support it alone.

>>5354851
>Unfortunately, there is no amount of evidence you could use to convince me!

welp time to eject from this thread

you are no different than some fundamentalist christian who has no desire to listen to logic or reason

>>5354851

Fuck. Just realized it.

8/10, very good troll sir.

>>5354853
Oh ho ho! In my eyes, Debates are not meant to win or lose! Chances are the people debating are not in full command of their subjects anyway! On the contrary, debates are meant solely to proselytize, simply because debates can be won through lies and not facts

>>5354858
Obviously I wouldn't be a good debater if I let the opposition convince me! Maybe on a personal scale you could, but unless you really impress me i'd never relent!

>>5354861
no troll

>>5354834

>For every study they read, I'm sure I could read a study of my own!

>>5354869
that image gave me a chuckle

but honestly, I wouldn't want this debate turning into a study war, I much prefer all people attending to be in full command of their own knowledge

>>5354858
Also, I do have a desire to listen to logic or reason, but I'm sure I could refute any point you make easily

>>5354875

sorry bud but you are not going to refute 50 years of climate research

like others have said, the debate has been settled

>>5354851
>I find the evidence boring
Well maybe if I slapped some tits on it you'd pay attention. The evidence is there.
It has been directly observed that human activity causes the increase in atmospheric CO2. The record for how much carbon fuel we use goes back a long way, and the causative role is obvious.
>Show me something interesting, perhaps!
See related pic.
>there is no amount of evidence you could use to convince me!
I do not feel the same way. I understand the purpose of debate, but this attitude is exactly what's wrong - certainty is seen as the yardstick to judge truth. Such attitudes reward and encourage stupidity and submission. Science is the antithesis of this.

>>5354881
giving up so fast eh

what are you

chick en

>>5354889

what a sore loser

you are still yet to refute anything

>>5354869
>>5354881
>>5354886
Abandon thread friends. See
>>5354851
OP is trolling.

>>5354886
ah, the most basic of the graphs! Surprisingly this doesn't even show the relation of temperature. So, by showing me this graph, what are you trying to prove? Wouldn't you agree that an atmosphere enriched with CO2 has many benefits?

>>5354895
you have yet to give me anything to refute?

>>5354886
and to counter your yardstick argument, accept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof! If you can somehow convince me to turn the energy industry on it's head in fear of killing ourselves, please do!

>>5354834
>It would be quite embarrassing if my opponents could only defend themselves with studies!
6/10, you're getting replies but you gave yourself away here.

>>5354875

The problem here is that you think saying things like "For every study they read, I'm sure I could read a study of my own! It would be quite embarrassing if my opponents could only defend themselves with studies!" is proving some sort of point.

Hop on over to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
and then realize that none of the arguments on this list will be taken seriously by any scientist who understands the scientific method. It is not embarrassing to only be able to quote studies to prove a point. That is how science is done. Statements that are not backed up by empirical evidence cannot be held as a counterargument to statements that are. You may fool the general populous, but not scientists.

>>5354917
Your'e absolutely correct, that is how science is done. But this issue has evolved beyond science, it is now infused with politics! So, I charge you of /sci/ to prove to me this issue of politics and science, the hideous monster it has become. Politics is about fooling the general populous, and unfortunately if we can do so, you scientists will suffer as well. You may want to start debating people such as myself.

>>5354898
Don't jump the gun there.
I am trying to establish that humans have caused an increase in atmospheric CO2. We'll get to that other stuff once you agree.
>suppose you do
I will explain to you what a CO2-enriched atmosphere looks like (pic related)
>suppose you don't
Please explain why not.

FTR I'm happy to help you play devil's advocate, if you want the best arguments for your side let me know.

>>5354927
Thank you for your cooperation.

I agree humans have caused an increase in atmospheric CO2.

There is also cause to suggest, though I am not making it my official position, that temperature actually has a direct affect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has to do with the solubility of CO2 in seawater, but let's not get into that now. Perhaps later?

Continue my friend!

>>5354908
Again, you are stretching. You are assigning catastrophic and stupid solutions to my case and exclaiming about them rather than engaging with my argument.
(Personally, I think we've fucked it, and it doesn't really matter what we do now.)
Are you now saying that you would be fine with an extraordinary amount of evidence? Or are you saying that you can't be convinced? These are mutually exclusive.

>>5354927
pic
(it's venus)

>>5354926
>But this issue has evolved beyond science, it is now infused with politics
Those cover two different, non-overlapping areas of the issue. Science covers the phenomenon, politics covers the response to it.

Science can tell you the possible ways you can respond to it, but ultimately the decision of how to respond is political. However, politics has absolutely no say in the existence or mechanics of the phenomenon itself. That is purely the realm of science.

If you want to debate AGW itself, you need to do it on scientific grounds, not political ones.

>>5354942
I know it seems a bit confusing, but that's politics!

I am saying that the evidence you would need to convince me to change my official position is fairly astounding, given what your claims mean to our livelihood. If you are right, and wish us to do something about it, well let's save that part for a bit later in our arugment

>>5354948
perhaps I should've made it a bit clearer then

This is for a poli sci course, so I am actually interested in debating both the science and the response. As a matter of fact, I would like to argue that the science is irrelevant (to politics), because the response democrats expect is near impossible

>>5354946
interesting picture

Are you suggesting this is the path we take?

>>5354960
>As a matter of fact, I would like to argue that the science is irrelevant (to politics), because the response democrats expect is near impossible
And yet it was Republicans who created the Clean Air Act and the idea of emissions trading.

>>5354975
funny how things seem to flip

>>5354975
Democrats hope to switch the country to clean energy by 2035. Do you believe this is possible?

>>5354926
Really though, read the list man.

>>5354940
I accept that there are other causes of CO2 emissions.
In particular, there is a critical positive feedback effect involved in models of climate science - as the oceans warm the polar ice melts, the water loses albedo (absorbs more energy), degassing leads to more CO2, and then we start all over again.

CO2 absorbs infrared light. This means that such light moving from the surface of the earth towards space can be absorbed by a CO2 molecule, which then spits it back out in a random direction. Sometimes it points back towards the ground, which means the light goes through this process again, each time making the air molecules more energetic.
The end result is just like wrapping yourself in a sheet - your own body warmth is trapped, because the sheet prevents all your heat from escaping perpendicularly into the environment.

If you don't want to hear about absorption lines then I understand. But an atmosphere enriched with CO2 is a warmer atmosphere, and there are geological records that conform to our expectations formed by such theories.

>>5354983

possible yes

is it likely to happen? probably not

>>5354987
I understand the science of green house gases

But as I said before, there are advantages to a CO2 enriched atmosphere.

Also, can you convince me that this effect is so significant as to destroy our species?

>>5354996
Sorry, perhaps I should have said "plausible"
I think it's a pipe dream

>>5354950
>that's politics!
Well, you should have posted this on /pol/. We know science, not how to market it to idiots.
(I am sorry that your constituency is full of idiots, and I know they need representation. Just remember that you can't bluff your way out of everything, and we know you can't bluster your way out of this.)

>>5354966
It's the path we're on, but it probably won't get that bad. It's just an example of where you can see what CO2 does to surface temperature right here in our solar system.

>>5355010
;-)

>>5355008
>Also, can you convince me that this effect is so significant as to destroy our species?

you truly are and idiot OP

you already said you wouldnt let youself be convinced by the opposition

>>5355014
I would like to argue that we would run out of CO2 producing energy sources millenia before anything that devastating can happen

>>5355016
D'oh!

>>5355008
>Also, can you convince me that this effect is so significant as to destroy our species?
It's not about destroying our species directly, it's about making the world a difficult place to live for us. One of the predictions of AGW is that overall precipitation will decrease, and what precipitation does come will be in the form of less frequent, but more powerful storms, rather than more frequent rainfall. Dry soil is harder to grow crops in and doesn't absorb water well, so when the storms do come, the force of the storm itself will damage the crops and the storm water will mostly run off into waterways and be of no use to the crops.

>>5355020
>I would like to argue that we would run out of CO2 producing energy sources millenia before anything that devastating can happen
You would be wrong, then. Even if we only look at proven oil reserves, let alone new sources of oil, the amount of potential carbon emissions we already have is several times larger than the amount needed to reach tipping points for catastrophic, irreversible changes.

We could, quite easily, create an inhabitable climate with less than half of the fossil fuels we have sitting around right now.

>>5355016
He's not an idiot, but he is softly trolling and claiming he is here for one thing but then actually looking for another. This thread is definitely better suited for /pol/ now, as it seems any real scientific discussion has died down. If you have any questions about the science, feel free to ask, OP, but otherwise I'll leave this to people who enjoy debating political stuff and move on to threads with more facts in em.

>>5355008
>there are advantages to a CO2 enriched atmosphere.
(1) Please name some.
(2) This doesn't change the fact that you've now conceded the first two parts of the argument. Are you ready for the rest?
>Yes
This (human-caused) increase in CO2 is directly linked with an increase in global temperature, which has been observed in many phenomena - ice cores drilling hundreds of thousands of years into the past, current satellite and ocean observations, computer simulation, meteorological reports all show that the world is getting hotter, and that it is getting hotter exactly as we would expect it to given the elevation in CO2.

>>5355023
I would argue that the atmosphere enriched with CO2 will promote crop growth as it already has, with farmers experiencing up to 25% more yields because of it.

As for the storms, I would repeat that it would take far too long for that to happen

>>5355029
I think the numbers you're discussing are very debatable. As far as my knowledge goes, oil reserves will stop meeting our demands far sooner than coal will. As for your second claim, i'm not sure where the hell you pulled that out of, but if you can prove it please do! I always hear estimates of thousands of years before catastrophic destruction, let alone alone a few hundred.

>>5355034
you're right. I've decided to tour the boards, as I would like to be as prepared as possible. I have decided /sci/ would obviously be the hardest fight. /int/ was fairly easy, although I did meet some interesting people with interesting points.

>>5355035
1) see beginning of this post
2) I've already conceded to your first two points, i'm not that retarded.

I'm sure there are many things linked to an increase in global temperature, that have been observed in many phenomena. It is your job not to say this, but to prove that CO2 is the biggest culprit

>>5354960
>As a matter of fact, I would like to argue that the science is irrelevant (to politics), because the response democrats expect is near impossible
This is a bad argument, in my opinion. Conservatives double-think like crazy on this one - they link catastrophic responses to the reality of the phenomenon, and argue against strawmen of their own creation. In effect, they are denying reality to excuse a lack of response.
Conservatives should acknowledge climate change and help to build a rational response. Arguments like these only exacerbate the unnecessary polarization surrounding the issue.

>>5355063
Normally I'd agree with you, but perhaps you should read this paragraph out of their platform.

We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy, but the taxpayers should not serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors. It is important to create a pathway toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources and to aggressively develop alternative sources for electricity generation such as wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal energy. Partnerships between traditional energy industries and emerging renewable industries can be a central component in meeting the nation’s long-term needs. Alternative forms of energy are part of our action agenda to power the homes and workplaces of the nation.

beautifully written if I say so myself

>>5355051
>I think the numbers you're discussing are very debatable.
I'm sure you would like to think that, but no, they're not debatable.

>I would argue that the atmosphere enriched with CO2 will promote crop growth as it already has, with farmers experiencing up to 25% more yields because of it.

>As for the storms, I would repeat that it would take far too long for that to happen
Sure, you can argue those things, but you'd be wrong.

>>5355068
rather than saying i'm wrong, perhaps you could contribute?

The judge and the jury only believe what you want them too. If you give them no evidence, of course you should lose!

>>5355051
>prove that CO2 is the biggest culprit
There are three things that could be the culprit: the atmosphere, the planet, or the sun.
We can rule out the sun readily, as solar activity has remained relatively constant for hundreds of years.
The planet can cause heating of the atmosphere through particulates, especially through volcanic eruptions. However, volcanic eruption rates have remained constant over the last few decades as well.
The only thing that has changed is the amount of CO2 humans are producing.

>>5355065
>We encourage
>It is important
>aggressively
Why do they believe this is the case? This kind of vague nonsense allows for republicans to deny the realities of climate change while characterizing renewable energy as "a handy gadget".
It's true that there are many reasons to want to explore renewables. But what about technology to reverse climate change? Does the possibility of investment in such ventures even rate a mention?

>>5355069
OK OP I'm going to watch Fringe now, if you want the best scientific coverage of the issue that is also very entertaining, I recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
[Great channel on this issue]
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8
[potholer54's playlist of climate change vids]

Good luck in your debate.

>>5355071
Wouldn't you say the change in the atmosphere is so minuscule, so far, as to not warrant such drastic temperature changes? Surely you can't say that the change in the atmosphere is the only cause!

Also, indulge me while I switch to politics for a minute. Do you think there is anything we could do to save ourselves? Producing solar panels generates CO2, windmills destroy carbon sinks, Hydroelectric power decomposes the environment around it, my point being no matter what the argument is there will always be human emissions. Are these supposedly clean energy sources the answer, or are we eternally doomed?

>>5355093
isn't it amazing! politics, man!

don't worry, the democratic platform is just as disgusting

>>5355106
Thanks friend, enjoy yourself!

>>5355107
Not that guy, but
>Wouldn't you say the change in the atmosphere is so minuscule, so far, as to not warrant such drastic temperature changes?
I WOULD say that, because that's what the science tells us. Your supposition is not hard enough evidence to overturn scientific findings.

>Surely you can't say that the change in the atmosphere is the only cause!
The current scientific understanding is that human-origin CO2 actually is responsible for more than 100% of observed warming (because other GHGs and natural processes have slightly reduced the CO2'simpact).

>>5355123
>The current scientific understanding
Although I will admit that most scientists conform to these ideas, there is doubt, so the evidence is obviously not foolproof. Perhaps you could explain to me why these scientists disagree with the general populous? Are there not scientific findings that refute your claims?

>>5355051
But CO2 and other greenhouse gasses we release isn't the biggest culprit, it's just what we add to the equation which tips the delicate balance that was in place. We were due for warming anyway, The CO2 just makes it just fast enough to cause problems.

>>5355157
Now i'm confused!
>>5355123
claims the opposite! He claims that this CO2 is the only cause!

I understand the whole "tipping the balance" idea, but is CO2 doing this all or not?

>>5355153
>there is doubt
Not among scientists, there isn't

>Perhaps you could explain to me why these scientists disagree with the general populous?
I don't have the chops to do it justice. However, I recommend you read the most current IPCC report.

>>5355171

>>5355171
http://www.petitionproject.org/

what is doubt?

>>5355166
CO2's bringing it to our attention because it's causing the problems. If Co2 wasn't in the equation the environment would warm and cool based on it's larger cycles, but slower and the ecosystems could adapt.

Because we've tipped the balance it's going faster and accelerating. Think of an upside down pyramid holding water in perfect balance on it's point. Add an outside force to this balance and it will slowly start to tip to the side, spilling water in a larger and larger quantity as it tips further.

Because it's gotten hot enough fast enough, the ice is melting releasing further gasses which is accelerating it even further along with a myriad of other influences like ecosystems collapsing and deforestation.

Of course, it could fix itself and everything be ok. But we're going to go through a LOT of problems before then and there's a chance that it won't come back to an equilibrium until everything is dead.

>>5355188
And by CO2 in the second sentence I mean the CO2 that we as a species release into the atmosphere along with our other contributions to global warming. (Cattle and such)

>>5355188
So you're claiming that the increase in CO2 is causing irregular heating patterns, which in turn cause even more irregular heating patterns. By this logic, irregular heating patterns in the past should have caused a similar output! The addition of humans into the equation should produce irregular results, but the earth is a fairly old place! Surely earth has seen something as drastic as this before, without the introduction of us into the equation. Surely it's not unreasonable to assume it's possible without humans. With that said, with the addition of 7 billion humans, I doubt that the cycles could be normalized with all of the activity we do have, let alone burning fossil fuels. What do you suggest we do, kill ourselves??!!

>>5354799
>>Solar variation, volcanic activity, blargh
>Stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

>OMG OP THE SUN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEMPERATURE LELELELELELEL

Eat shit and die, you fucking useless pleb.

>>5354886

Why you fucking lying little piece of shit.

>>5355237
my savior!
teach me your ways! I wish to join your crusade

>>5355237
The issue at hand is not whether the planet will survive AGW, but whether humans will survive AGW.

>>5355237
Failure: MAXIMUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

>>5354853
You clearly don't know much about debating.

>>5355219
And they did! We had great die-offs, major changes in the biodiversity and everything coming down to a small "chokepoint" in evolution a number of times in the past. If I remember correctly humanity has one of these genetic chokepoints when a volcano (I think it was in Asia) sent the world into a prolonged cool period because of the ash and smoke it released. It has happened before and can again.

It's possible without us but so is pretty much anything. We have the ability to have a huge impact.

While controversial, it's been proposed that we need to have a smaller population and stop breeding quite so much. (Through better education, birth control, etc.)

Other than that, the other thing I think we need to do is live simpler and with a larger focus on "DiY" and sustainability than western culture has fostered. If every person is doing their part to try to make as little impact on the world while living with it I believe it can be a symbiotic relationship.

This is all based on my understanding of how everything works of course. My views change based on new information and old information being proven wrong so if you see any glaring mistakes in my understanding let me know.

>>5355237
Temperature is not solely a function of CO2 levels. No one is arguing that. Also that graph is incredibly misleading, seeing as how it covers the entire Phanerozoic.

The planet is warming up on its own, as it does cyclically, but this is the first time in history we've contributed to it.

It's a tiny amount, but let's not forget that it's only a fraction of a percent of your body mass in heroin that will kill you.

Both the "it's happening on its own" and "we're contributing" branches of thought are correct.

>>5355353
Here.

>>5355371
Exactly, for some reason people are more interested in proving each other wrong than trying to work together to find out the truth.

>>5355355
>Also that graph is incredibly misleading, seeing as how it covers the entire Phanerozoic.

>WAHHHH YOUR WINDOW IS TOO BIG. WHY DIDN'T YOU CHERRYPICK YOUR DATA LIKE I DID?!?!

The more eras you look at, the better.

>>5355261
Who the hell is "potholer54" on and why should I give a fuck about his YouTube videos?

>>5355371
Do you have any evidence that this is cyclic?

>>5355405

"The Milankovitch Cycle" is one example of a factor that isn't caused by man. The key word there being "cycle".

>>5354793
>given our current technology and financial situation, America couldn't possibly do anything to help it.
Probably America would be able to effectively deal with the negative consequences but it would most likely be less cost-effective than reducing long terms CO2 emitions.

>>5355402
>>5355402
>The more eras you look at, the better

This is absolutely untrue, at least in the context of AGW. The reason we are concerned with a relatively small period of time is because it is within this period that our species and ecosytem exists. If we were to change our climate even slightly, that could lead to a positive feedback loop that would make it much harder for us to exist. The Earth will be fine, it's our own future that we have to worry about.

And, as I said before, temperature is not solely a function of CO2 levels, so that graph is still misleading.

We are preventing the Earth from going back into an ice age.

>>5355423
The Milankovitch Cycle is poorly understood at the moment, and most researchers (at least from what I've read) seem to say that anthropogenic effects have the ability to cancel out the effects of the cycle.

Hello all, I was eating dinner

>>5355353
>This is all based on my understanding of how everything works of course. My views change based on new information and old information being proven wrong so if you see any glaring mistakes in my understanding let me know.

Of course! Isn't this how Science works?
But otherwise, I agree with less breeding, but I doubt that it will slow down no matter how hard we try to stop it. It will probably be pretty difficult without some sort of totalitarian government, and I think at that point I'd prefer global warming!

>>5355355
I find all graphs to be incredibly misleading! All graphs in this thread only show a few relations, while leaving out key data!

>>5355371
Hey, some rationality!

>>5355402
potholer54 is obviously a contributing scientist in the field of accuracy!

>>5355405
pfft

>>5355484
Anthropogenic effects are viable, but I'm weary when accepting them! I think people have a lot to benefit if they are, and I suppose it has been, proven true! I would only want to listen to global warming alarmists if I was 100% sure we would kill ourselves as fast as some say. right now being only 90% sure is not close enough!

>>5355469
Who wants to freeze!

>>5355459
>temperature is not solely a function of CO2 levels

I THOUGHT YOU GUYS SAID THE EVIDENCE WASN'T CONTRADICTORY argh blargh blargh blurgh

>>5355506
I actually like you. You get your point across without being a dick. But isn't bad if we prevent the Earth from an ice age? Messing with it's temperature cycle?

>>5355525
of course it is! don't look at the negatives though my friend! I see the glass half full, rather than seeing the glass half dead!

>>5355525
>Getting points across without being a dick

Someone asks a question: "Do you have any evidence that this is cyclic?"

His response: pfft.

Hes not the worst, but you gotta admit he's kind of a dick. He's enjoying riling people up, but is at least carrying on valid conversation for the most part.

>>5355237
One anomaly doesn't discredit correlation especially if you consider how complex the geologic past was.

I don't know if that's a coincidence, but I think the Ordovician Ice ace when pangaea started breaking in smaller supercontinents might be analogous to the pre-Ediacaran era snow-ball earth period when Rodinia broke up into smaller supercontinents.

>The extreme cooling of the global climate around 700 million years ago (the so called Snowball Earth of the Cryogenian period) and the rapid evolution of primitive life during the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian periods are often thought to have been triggered by the breaking up of Rodinia.

>>5355506
>Anthropogenic effects are viable, but I'm weary when accepting them! I think people have a lot to benefit if they are, and I suppose it has been, proven true! I would only want to listen to global warming alarmists if I was 100% sure we would kill ourselves as fast as some say. right now being only 90% sure is not close enough!

That's a pretty ridiculous argument. So if a doctor told you that a lump on your balls had a 90% chance of being cancerous, would you ignore him?

Aside from that, most of the effects we've seen from AGW thus far have been negative. Ocean acidification in particular could end up being devastating. Usually I hear about "increased crop yields", but those hypothetical positive effects might be curtailed by increases in the severity and recurrence of droughts. Honestly, we can never be quite sure what will happen, especially concerning weather, but I don't think we should hold on to the notion that it's all going to be alright.

>>5355548
Sorry, you must be a newcomer here!

I've already mentioned I've abandoned my positions, and have stuck to devaluing your arguments

see
>>5354797


>>5355552
I think we can all agree that most data in this field of though is constant, but both sides have many anomalies they should work out. I don't know nothin about geology or nothin, but I do know about being president! And god dammit if I was president I'd kill all them god damn Rodinias if I had the chance

>>5355567
Perhaps the lump is my other testicle!

But seriously, more people have an interest in an Anthropogenic GW than a lump on my balls. Although im not saying people don't have an interest in there being a lump on my balls, I've seen how many have profited already from the early stages of green energy, and it's frightening!

As for your second point, don't be afraid my good friend! We'll all be dead by then i'm sure!

And if that doesn't sooth you, consider this: We can either choose to adhere to clean, renewable sources of energy, but do you ever think it will be over? Some day we will prove even the cleanest of sources to be dirty, and then try to introduce a new era of clean energy sources! The cycle may repeat for thousands of years, as no energy source is without waste, as far as I know! Best not to think about it, I know it tends to hurt my head sometimes ;-(

>>5355571
Whatever gives you your kicks, man.

>>5355602
I get my kicks from thought provoking arguments friend! I believe we have to question everything, because that is our right! Never accept anything if you have a shred of doubt!

What else...

Down with the hippies!

>>5355533
>I see the glass half full, rather than seeing the glass half dead!
Pardon our skepticism to your motives, but that's pretty much the new line of defence of every previously ACC-denialists that had their erroneous arguments like "volcanic activity emits more CO2 than internal combustion engines" and oversimplistic explanations like "a German Shepherd Dog produces more CO2 than an SUV" debunked with evidence and common sense, not to mention your attempts to present the academic consensus of climatologists as a conspiracy or propaganda by half-crazy hippies.

>>5355608
Shouldn't we cut down on CO2 emissions for our health? Helping the Earth could be considered secondary

>>5355608
>Down with the hippies!
Way to prove your political bias when asking for "thought provoking arguments".

Stay an edgy libertarian kid butthurting about liberal conspirators stealing your precious money and oil with taxes to prevent the South from rising again.

>>5355619
CO2 is not directly threatening our health, not at so low levels.

It's threatening climatologic stability and consequently ecologic and economic balance. The only health issues are development of insects and germs in areas that were previously unfavourable for their growth.

>>5355638
Ahh okay, I think I meant carbon monoxide. Anything on that?

>>5355609
>your attempts to present the academic consensus of climatologists as a conspiracy or propaganda by half-crazy hippies
Hehe, you caught on to that I see :-) I'll have to make it less obvious next time!!

My motives favor plausibility, I could care less if global warming is true or not! I just want this fair planet to enjoy longevity, as well as ourselves. The best possible route is still shrouded, and I don't think an all in gamble on clean energy is the correct path!

>>5355619
Should we? Of course!!! Could we? This is where the debate begins my friend!

>>5355625
It was a joke, friend!

I hate libertarians! They have good intentions, but seem to favor an archaic and blunt system of learning, enforcing ideas they know aren't plausible any longer. As a matter of fact, I hate all political parties! But this is a different debate isn't it... I tend to dislike any extremity in politics, the only way to come out winning is to get along :)

>>5355596
You're right, ALL forms of energy have some negative effect on the environment. Mining for neodymium and other rare-earth elements commonly used in renewable energies is pretty nasty, for example. We also know that even if we were to completely end the use of fossil fuels right now the Earth would continue to warm. We can mitigate the effects by weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (which we need to do anyways), but we'll still have to deal with some amount of warming. The name of the game now is adaptation, and the sooner we accept that AGW is real the sooner we can start adapting.

>>5355651
Unless you live next to a coal-plant there's nothing to be afraid of about that.

>>5355659
I can agree with that, friend

Now, I just have to convince 30 other people at this debate!

SHIT

>>5355651
Just make sure you have your carbon monoxide detector, as it is colorless and odorless and you'll be perfectly fine

>>5355656
>It was a joke, friend!
So was my post (more of an overgeneralizing hyperbole than a joke) but my point still remains:

I don't have a problem with discussion for argument's sake or to improve our perception and recognise our misinterpreted data, but in the case of global warming there's a militant politically-motivated reactionism fueled with stubborn confirmation bias, accusations and intentional slander and missinformation. Not even hippy catastrophologists haven't hit so low.

It's hard to take denialists' arguments under consideration anymore.

>>5355732
>Not even hippy catastrophologists haven't hit so low.

I'd disagree, but I suppose this is more of opinion here

I think both sides are militant, and it is rather frightening. I remember 5 years ago it was absolutely horrible, thankfully no one seems to care as much anymore. I think America (assuming you live in america) is now dominated by the exact qualities you described, for better or for worse :(

>>5354917
I actually just started to read the list

fuck that

there goes all my arguments, i'll stick to politics, not science thank you
so much more interesting!

>>5355846
look at this one
Reductio ad Hitlerum

I cant even call people hitler anymore ?!?! What are you guys, communists!!

>>5355846
Haha. Yeah I think thats my favorite wikipedia list. Followed closely by the list of lists. And its true, 4chan would be a horrendously boring place if we only argued logically and never employed logical fallacies. The fact is to the general public many of these "techniques of debate" are more compelling than logical arguments. The world takes all types. I do get the sense that you at least recognize the beauty that logic and the scientific method provides by giving a definite answer that is not bogged down in the wishy washy quagmire of human psychology, and hope that when push comes to shove you are on our side: the side attempting to expand the frontier of human knowledge from generation to generation, in spite of all the social ups and downs/wars/petty bickering that may occur in that time.

>>5356166
Yes of course. No matter how ignorant I may seem, any contradiction I make is in good humor. If you can't defend yourselves against my arguments, you'll never stand the test of real logic! At heart I realize perfectly well that my side of the argument is slowly dying, and you're correct, when push comes to shove I am on your side. I suppose generating these arguments is my way of contributing to expanding someone's thought, even my own sometimes.

Im going to college for computer science, so even though I don't follow the scientific method per-say (although everyone does in a way), I understand what it hopes to accomplish, and I appreciate it's hopes of keeping the scientific field relatively clean of these filthy arguments. It's not really my preference though, as I regard these psychological arguments as an art form! I think they should be appreciated. Politics is amazing, the logic behind some of the writing is able to describe things in a situation which can be infinitely true, while being infinitely false. Thinking about them all makes me happy!

Back to the list though, couldn't strictly adhering to the list be considered a logical fallacy? I mean, if you couldn't defend yourself from some of these arguments and have to adhere to a list, perhaps you should work on your argument? I know that if someone had to point out to me that calling someone Hitler was a logical fallacy, I'd be disappointed in myself.

but that's just me!

>>5354917

I don't think anyone could internalize that list of fallacies. If you could, you wouldn't even be engaged in the argument, and you'd be constantly digging around for, "Oh! That's a fallacy! Need to find that reference!"

By the time you figured out the reference, your opponent wouldn't care what you would have said anyway because they've left the thread.

Like me.

>>5356325
I would memorize the list, because everything on the list is a wonderful rule to break in order to prove a non-scientific point. Of course a few are below even myself, but still, some on here i'm surprised I haven't tried to use yet.

>>5356325
>>5356263
Its not about the list. Its that the scientifically minded will likely intuitively look down on an argument that employs one of these logical fallacies. The list is not exhaustive, and is full of repetitions, and strictly adhering to it would be a logical fallacy as well, but I presented it as an example of the kinds of arguments that are less likely to work here. They'll get people heated, but the majority of the scientifically minded will view them as occupying a lower echelon compared to empirical evidence.

Its just nice to have the fallacious argument so eloquently and meticulously torn apart by wikipedia so that I don't have to. Me being lazy, really.