1) How.

2) How is his newspaper article going to be biased... when the actual guy says so. If someone asks me whether I like mustard or ketchup better.... and I say mustard.... and my Wikipedia article says ketchup.... and my friend tries to change it to mustard.... because he knows I like mustard better... AND he called me up to confirm that.

How is that biased? That can't be biased.

That's like if I wrote an article saying that most grass is green... and people called me biased.

As for why though... the volume of evidence isn't based on anything... since we have no clue how much natural Co2 is released in that atmosphere.  All we do know is that even what is recorded.... it's VASTLY greater then the amount of artifical CO2 we produce.  We just don't know how vastly greater it is.

Graphs showing one time period or type of mustard can say mustard is more popular, whilst others can say ketchup.

Newspapers are run by companys who want to make money, they also have affiliations and sponsors and are based somewhere, these factors will mean they favour mustard or ketchup

True we dont know that, but the number of scientists and organizations who say AGW is happening far out number thoose who say it isnt, i know that proves nothing, but thats my point, neither side can win, my objection here is Sqrl's attempts to get me on his side.

 What does that have to do with me specifically saying mustard is beter.  Which was that articles point.

One guy said "I did not say I was wrong and did not apologize."

Said guys friend tried to change the wikipedia article.

It was found out that one person kept changing it back as well as changing many other things falsey to make global warming look better.

How is that article biased? 

My point is, you can select a segment of data to back up your argument, as easily as i could do the same for mine.

Im not talking about Wikipedia at the moment, i know it is flawed, the links are usefull though, many of them have arguments and data for AGW.

What dont you understand, okay another example perhaps.

Paper 1: AGW is real says genius with PHD, here are his findings, data and graphs to illustrate his point.

Paper 2: AGW is nonsense says genius with PHD, here are his findings, data and graphs to illustrate his point.

You get it, media is biased, BBC says one thing and backs it up, ITV another and backs it up, neither is necciserially correct, its up to us to decide who made a better point, in this case, NYT said AGW is false and backed it up, Ive seen countless news reports and newspapers which say AGW is True.

Ah, but there is where you miss his point i believe.... because i believe this IS his point.

We know a few things about climate change.

1) Natural sources of CO2 are greater then man made sources

2) There used to be a lot more CO2 in the air... even at times that were colder then now.

3) Since we started burning CO2 the level of CO2 in the air has doubled.

4) This rise though smaller started BEFORE we started burning CO2.

We know these four points for a fact. That's about all we know.

This leads us to basically two possible conclusions.

1) Global Warming is a natural occurence... but we are speeding it up.

2) Global Warming is a natural occurence.... CO2 has nothing to do with it however, as there is no proof of causation, only correlation.

While most people claim that Global Warming is man made... and if we stop producing CO2 we'll be all saved. In reality we're likely screwed either way. Not only that though... they claim that artifical CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer then regular CO2 because... well there is no explination other then it fits the current global warming models.

Which is something a lot of scientists do actually. Sometimes it works out like Dark Energy. Sometimes it doesn't work out.... like Aether.

What we actually know about global warming either supports his arguement or semi-supports his arguement. So it's not a case of right or wrong... so much as a case of wrong and semiwrong.

From what I know as actual solid facts anyway.

2 seems more likely until someone can give me a reason why greenhouse gases aren't effecting the planet the same way they effected it way back when.  

How is that not the more credible of the two theories? 

@ Kasz216 - I know the planet has warmed and cooled before, but what i see on tv and read in papaers/internet leaves me to believe that we are either casuing GW or speeding up GW, either way we should do something to at least slow down GW, if you want to be all doomsday, i can top that, the sun will eventually expand to the point where this planet is rendered uninhabitable. The best solution is to make sure this planet is hospitable for as long as we can make it so, and also to increase space exploration and technology to the point that we can safely move to another planet when this one is rendered uninhabitable, most of this though is talking billions of years into the future, GW however from what ive seen is the next 250-325 years though, which is much sooner.

The problem is... just about eveerything you've read and seen on TV is crap... on both sides.

All we really know is the above. The 2nd position is the "scientific" reasoning since it would cause the seeking for why greenhouse gases don't effect our atmosphere like they used to.

A "to be safe" approach isn't a bad idea... but to argue it as it is the more sound arguement scientifically is just untrue.

Some people are just less willing to change their lifestyle on a "to be safe" arguement. Partially because most if not all of the "to be safe" agreements tend to set it up so that 3rd world nations can sell 1st world nations the right to use more carbon.

Which will have a bunch of negative effects for people in both the first world and the third world.

Proponents of global warming are basically asking people to change their everday lives based purely on a leap of faith... when said leap of faith is also full of a lot of political benfits for the people heading the "leap."

Sqrl isn't saying that it isnt' man made so much as he's saying there is no proof it is man made. 

I'm not going to read the whole thread but I'll post this from the IPCC in early 2007.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).

The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:

Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].

There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.

In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.

Now that this thread has calmed down I'm going to try to explain a few things:

First, some quotes of mine to show that I did in fact state my position clearly as well as some clarifications where I think they may have been needed:

With PS360:

Note on this one^^: Global Warming (GW) as a term actually means that global temperatures are on the rise and doesn't actually imply a cause. This is one of the elements of propaganda the media has going at the moment, many people confuse GW for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). AGW is actually GW caused specifically by man and is the theory that I primarily take issue with. The main point behind my position is that AGW and its effects are significantly overestimated.

Note on this one^^: C02 is a greenhouse gas and the GHE is a proven fact, so we do know that C02 produces some heat. I want to stress that the amount of impact and the proportion of C02 that is caused by mankind is the subject under debate here.

With LetsAll:

Now, I clearly stated my position throughout the thread with cited examples in support of it. I then repeatedly asked for others to cite specifically why they disagreed with my position, specifically why they distrusted my sources, etc..., but with one or two exceptions nobody did so...and when they did I promptly responded to each point and was never rebutted on any of those rebuttals.

I think both of those I "debated" made the same error of thinking that what we were debating was simply a question of opinion. In reality there is in fact a truth to the matter that is available to be found and proven, with that said the issue is definitely complicated and as a result it can be difficult to sort fact from fiction. This is of course why comprehension of the material being discussed as well as comprehension of your opponent's position is paramount in making progress in the debate.

To put things simply, a debate should have nothing to do with opinions and when you stand by a position and offer: "its my opinion", then you are essentially saying "I believe this, and I can't or won't explain why". That is of course of no use in a debate. As I mentioned above, progress is only made when both parties understand each other's positions, and that progress will only be towards the desired goal (ie "the truth") when both parties have a grasp on the materials being discussed.

In so much as I continued to provide the basis for my position while doing my best to convey my comprehension of the materials I feel I held my end of the debate up quite well. What both of my opponents might be surprised to learn is that I in no way consider these debates to have settled the matter in any way. Clearly there is far more to the discussion than we covered and there are almost certainly things that I do not understand about the complicated subject, and I think both Final-Fan and Kasz would say the same of themselves (actually Kasz already has in this thread, and Final-Fan did in our last CC debate).

But that is the purpose of an intellectually honest debate in the first place. To further the understanding of those participating whether they are making their case or "listening from the crowd". I've pointed out the fact that I don't know everything about the subject and that there were things for me to learn yet. On several occasions I also encouraged, as cited above, my opponents to point out my missing knowledge because...well let me quote myself again:

"not only am I confident in my position, I'm simply not afraid to be proven wrong...the truth is the goal afterall"

If anyone has read this post in full and still doesn't understand where I was coming from I don't know what to say. This is as explicit as I care to be on the subject.

@Kasz & Final-Fan,

Both of you seem to have understood what I was saying fairly well, I don't know why it wasn't as apparent to others in the thread. Perhaps it was a shortcoming on the part of my explanation but seeing as I'm not able to read their mind it was their job to point out specifically what they didn't understand and ask for clarification. Whatever the cause in both cases after several rounds of back and forth the conversation had moved nowhere and that was sufficient reason to just let it go, particularly in the case of LetsAll who was being insulting.

I hope my not participating this round won't deter you guys from having the debate anyways, I know both of you are interested and reasonably informed, and, conveniantly enough, opposed in opinion on the topic.

Until the next time I decide to jump in the middle of this crazy debate~

One point of note that should be considered. In science, we aren't supposed to present theories as facts. Unfortunately the media, leftist organizations, and hundreds of other entities are presenting the ideas, theories and suppositions as FACTS.

This is a bastardization of science. A raping at the very policy for which science is rooted.

Any scientists worth his weight in atoms (see what I did there?) will tell you the honest truth about Global Warming. The answer is....we don't know.

Plain and simple. We have theories, ideas, possibilities, suppositions, postulations.....but we don't have fact. We don't have proof. We don't have definitive evidence of anything. On the contrary, much of the data we do have, which is incredibly limited for such an undertaking, is blatantly contradictory.

When such contradictory data exists, the data should never be compiled into a peer review public report.


On the premise of a whole, we need to cut down pollution but not on the scare tactic of bastardized science perpetuated by profiteering politicians.