Thread: Debate - Global warming

There is a severe lack of evidence to draw the conclusion that humans have caused the global warming effect. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to support that man is not responsible for this phenomenon.
Ice core records over the past 650,000 years show that CO2 has succeeded temperature change. If CO2 causes global warming, how does this work?
Any thoughts/opinions to add to this debate? May I encourage you all to go do some research before you join in the conversation.

... CO2 isn't solely responsible for global warming. It mainly has to do with greenhouse gases, which includes CO2, but other things as well. And just to point out, humans haven't caused global warming, per se, but it's a natural phenomenon. Without global warming, Earth would freeze and nothing would survive. What we're doing is enhancing the global warming effect to a larger scale than it should be normally.

I wouldn't say there isn't a lack of evidence... I mean, there's definitely been a correlation with the decreased output of pollution and temperature rise in several studies; it's just dubious as to whether or not we can truly fix it. Some scientists even believe that if we don't dramatically decrease our pollution output in the next two decades, global warming will cause disastrous effects.

As peppero said, we aren't responsible for global warming. We just enhance it, or speed it up. However, we don't know how much we are enhancing global warming.

i'd hate to burst the bubble here, but this just all reminds me of the all gore movie. what about that do you think is rubbish and whats correct?

I too think the global warming "theory" is mostly hype. The earth has always gone through cycles of hot & cold spells that has nothing to do with humans. Don't get me wrong... I think we need to be careful about pollution, but I don't think a little extra CO2 is going to wipe out life on the planet. When CO2 levels go up, plant growth increases and converts it back to oxygen. Another gimmick is the rain forest argument. Over 65% of the worlds oxygen is created in the oceans (blue green algae). And when you cut down a tree, the lower plant life thrives and fills in the gap.

Does anyone else remember the ozone hole craze in the 80's & 90's? Ozone is created by sunlight hitting an O2 molecule and splitting it into O1 that recombines to 03. Ozone has a half life of 45 minutes... so more than half of the world's ozone layer is destroyed every hour. The only way to eliminate the ozone layer is to turn off the sun or eliminate the oxygen supply. As for the so called holes over the poles... the poles goes through months of diminished sunlight. No sunlight = no ozone. Blaming freon for the holes was just a financial gimmick by major corps based on quasi science. It also meant trillions of dollars spent on new a/c systems.

The funny thing is, the most environmentally friendly technology is nuclear power. I'd love to the world move away from fossil fuels and embrace nukes. ;-)

Global warming is over hyped i will agree, But what has happened is we use the sun for all of our resources with out it we couldn't survive it's clearly obvious.

With all of our carbon emissions we are slowly killing the earth because we are trapping this large "fog" from the suns rays and creating a boiling effect from it as we can't release any of our heat out like we used to.

Many years ago things similar did happen with the ice-age and meltdowns and so on.

But the thing is we have increased the global warming effect with our technology and our production.

It's a fact that global warming is not caused by humans but increased by humans (and increased significantly)

Global warming by human emissions is not a fact, but a hypothesis. Don't take my word for it... just google "global warming farce" and you'll find thousands of articles on the subject including a petition signed by 31,000 scientist. It's human nature to worry about the end of the world. We've all heard hundreds of doomsday theories. Heck, it's even written in the bible (Revelations). It's easy to get caught up in the hype when the media/politicians exaggerate the truth for ratings or political favor.

Does anyone know how much of a temp differential this theory is based on? Less than a 3/4 (0.75) degree fluctuation in the past 100 years. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. The earth's temp is constantly fluctuating. Just look at Greenland and the Sahara Desert (up to a 30 degree flux). For additional proof just look at the projected temperature charts over the past 2,000 years. It peaked higher than today around 1000AD then hit a cool period in the 1600s. Now it's warming up again.

This thread makes me want to make a debate section of the forum as well. Imma make a new thread about it!!

Im a "debater" in my high school, so id love a debate section on this forum. haha

anyways, Vegas is pointing out the historical fact of this, and that is that there are periods of prolonged heat and cold. The issue here is that, this breaks the cycle and goes over what previous heat patterns have been at. 0.75 of a degree might not sound like it is too much Vegas, but even the slightest change in temperature can alter the environment and habitat of many species, causing extinction and change of environment. Also, the fact that the o-zone layer is dwindling away stands testament that though this may be part of a natural cycle, humans are placing an extreme on this since the industrial era in the mid 1700s.