By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
shams said:
Kytiara said:

A few people in the thread about the 2008 US presidential election mentioned this might be a good debate and I agree. So I'm curious to know:

  1. Do you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (from here on labelled as AGW)?
  2. What are you reasons for believing/disbelieving?
  3. How do you feel about the IPCC?
  4. How do you feel about proponents/opponents to the theory?
  5. What proof can you show one way or the other (Links would be good here)
 

1/ Definitely, 100%. Have so for years (about 15), and will literally laugh/ignore anyone who doesn't.

2/ I believe in science, rather than fantasy (non-science).

3/ Who are they?

4/ I think they are dangerous fools. Just about everyone I know/have met recently believes in AGW as well. The last person (on the radio) I heard that didn't believe, quoted something along the lines of "Noah survived the great flood, and God is causing this" or something like that (not exact).

5/ Not going to show links, but the fact that virtually every related scientist is united on the existance of AGW - is proof enough for me.

I'm pretty passionate about this topic :P. I think this is one of the most (if not the most) important challenges for our species, AND the planet. I believe this is nothing short of a "slow-effect/rate extinction level event" (or close to a ELE). 

 

Shams, I am very interested in why you believe in AGW.  What proof have you been shown and what research into the issue have you done?  What specific piece of information made you believe so strongly?

Why won't you show any links?  Your statement about virtually every scientist being in accord is in my opinion false.  There is a very large debate still raging about what the actual cause of climate change is.  For example, two websites often quoted in the debate include http://www.climateaudit.org/ and http://www.realclimate.org/, both sites include contributors with scientific backgrounds, including climatologists, and yet the two sites hold opposing views.

I think one of the problems with this debate is exemplified with your answer to question 1.  You admit you would ignore and laugh at anyone who disagrees with the idea of AGW, and yet how can there be a scientific process if anyone disagreeing is ignored?