The Great Global Warming Swindle

[TicaL]

this article directly contradicts your statement about the Ganges water level being lower due to global warming.

question: if the river originates from a melting glacier then wouldn't that glacier be shrinking naturally? this map shows that the Gangotri Glacier (the glacier that contributes water to the Ganges) has been melting since at least 1780.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16584

David's point isn't that this process is already occurring naturally at a slow rate; it's that the man made causes have implications that will increase these rates to a level that could prove costly with many human lives in the coming future. As far as I know there isn't anyone in here who endorses the idea of global warming while simultaneously ruling out the natural causes that play a role. I watched your video that you posted and learned some things from it but the part about how the sun effects us more in addition to the rising level of CO2 is only a double edged sword to humanity. From your side of this debate you sound as if you're trying to disprove entirely that the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will bare little to no effect on the process as a whole which would be naive and lead me to believe your beliefs derive more out of subconscious anxiety rather than the scientific evidence you've been exposed to. Disregarding where ones position is on global warming it should be acknowledged that man made causes are only speeding up the process whether on a large or small scale. The bottom line is that man won't be doing himself any good by inaction.

 

[Big Business]

this is from the article you just quoted please explain how any of this contradicts what I have been saying

........>>...Gangotri Glacier, situated in the Uttarkashi District of Garhwal Himalaya. Currently 30.2 km long and between 0.5 and 2.5 km wide, Gangotri glacier is one of the largest in the Himalaya. Gangotri has been receding since 1780, although studies show its retreat quickened after 1971. Over the last 25 years, Gangotri glacier has retreated more than 850 meters, with a recession of 76 meters from 1996 to 1999 alone.<<

yes it does say that. but where does it say that was caused by man made global warming? the earth's average temp has been steadily rising since around that time, which could be the cause. or there could be a climate shift or an elevation shift or another variable that neither one of us has brought up.

 

[Big Business]

David's point isn't that this process is already occurring naturally at a slow rate; it's that the man made causes have implications that will increase these rates to a level that could prove costly with many human lives in the coming future.

then why is he giving examples of current events?

As far as I know there isn't anyone in here who endorses the idea of global warming while simultaneously ruling out the natural causes that play a role. I watched your video that you posted and learned some things from it but the part about how the sun effects us more in addition to the rising level of CO2 is only a double edged sword to humanity. From your side of this debate you sound as if you're trying to disprove entirely that the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will bare little to no effect on the process as a whole which would be naive and lead me to believe your beliefs derive more out of subconscious anxiety rather than the scientific evidence you've been exposed to. Disregarding where ones position is on global warming it should be acknowledged that man made causes are only speeding up the process whether on a large or small scale. The bottom line is that man won't be doing himself any good by inaction.

why would you accept a theory at face value without trying to disprove it? especially when there is a controversy surrounding this topic and not a consensus. i do not refuse to believe that man is causing global warming but I will remain skeptical until there is irrefutable evidence. so what i am trying to do is look for holes in the argument of man made global warming not global warming

 

[Big Business]

the article doesn't go into the causes, just the effects.
Arguing about the causes is a little irrelevant imo, the climate trends ( and their effects) are undeniable

you're absolutely correct

 

[Derpeder]

at this point with all these Global Warming Debates in the loung...all I can say is that its getting hot in herr so we should just take off all our clothes...hey..hey

 

[Big Business]

I don;t think global warming is man made, but I do think we contribute to it in quite a big way, and hence are accelerating the process faster than we ( and other species) can adapt. We are making ourselves victims of our success

what brings you to that conclusion?

 

[Big Business]

its called logic

Would you explain this infallible theory to me so I don’t go on my merry way continuing to be naive(as TicaL puts it) or deliberately ignorant (as you put it) and believe that the science is not concrete?

 

[hamato_yoshii]

WW2 casualties were around 56 million dead

http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html


there are BILLIONS ( with a B) of human lives directly affected or threatened by the current climate changes, no matter what the cause, due to water shortages already being seen globally.
I personally am more concerned for the other species also affected, fish especially, given our forum here. Either way the problems are not getting easier to solve, they are becoming greater
We ( humans) can be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
Numerically/statistically therefore, climate change is a much greater threat to all life on the planet than WW2 was by far

First off just because 56 milion died doesnt automatically mean that only 56 million were affected, I think that many generations of Jewish (and German) people would find that extremely offensive. Secondly you continually make the statment that "the causes are irrelevant, the effects are undeniable" this is only partially true, while people on both side of the argument will acknowledge that a "warming" is occuring, the effects of that "warming" is where we don't agree. If this is a natural cycle, then I would argue that the earth isn't going to destroy itself. You act like just because there is a "warming" going on there is no need to debate the cause (which is silly because if it is a cycle, then we wouldn't need to start going crazy), and that also means that we need to take immediate action because the "effects" you are referencing are inevitable. Sorry, but we dont all agree what the effects will be, so I'm not joing the global warming militia just yet.

 

[Big Business]

there is a clear path from cause to effect.
Natural cycle plus man's contributions = cause
If you want to split hairs about what the effects will be then fine, but it is a clear and understandable progression to most people.
You make a fire it gets hot, put more fuel on it it gets hotter or bigger.
Human activities are clearly pouring gasoline on the fire of natural global warming
Your logic imo is like saying " I am never going to die because I haven't yet"

I think you are reading into my question too much.

How do you know definitively, that human activities are clearly pouring gasoline on the fire of natural global warming?

 

[Big Business]

ask me again in 25 years when DC is flooded

Washington DC is 410ft above sea level, so according to your theory the Oceans are going to rise that drastically? or are you being sarcastic?