I'm guessing you haven't had a class on the scientific method?

The fact that there are things that would show that global warming is not man-made is enough to disprove the theory underneath the scientific method until said problems are resolved.
Since I am not saying what causes global warming I don't need to prove any theory... just disprove that global warming is man made... which i've done until someoen can rebut said arguements.

"The burden of proof" lies among those trying to bring forth a specific scientific theory.

Otherwise I can say Gravity isn't really gravity it's invisible magic rings that are doing it... also you can't feel the rings.

@ ps360

I understand what your saying and i agree, but i think this is what the poster had in mind. He is comparing "global warming" to "gravity"

However with gravity their is no direct conflicting data.

While global warming has direct conflicting data.

I would argue that focusing on something that isn't the cause of global warming would allow the real cause of global warming to raise the tempeture of the planet and screw us over unless we did something to stop it...

or if we couldn't stop it... find ways to addapt instead of assuming things will be fine.

So you think we should create a worldwide economic depression then? Acting on something that is a theory at best. Thats the point. People say yea lets take preventative steps just in case but changing your light bulbs isnt enough. No action that could have an effect on "manmade" global warming would work unless its drastic. As i said before humans account for .001 ( i mistakenly said .01 before ) of the co2 emissions. Developing countries would have to stop developing, industrial countries would need to cut back, but think of it like this every cut back is another job loss, another lost profit, one less donation of food to those who need it, cuts in medical insurance. I know these examples are broad but think about it. Pair this with increased government spending which means higher taxes and less money allocated to other KNOWN problems, diseases, etc. A drastic change in lifestyle would be in store for everyone, all based on speculation. The truth is no one knows what the future holds...

Rubang, you gave an argument based on the 2004 movie "Day After Tomorrow."  EPIC FAIL

I've been silently reading all of the responses to this thread and as of yet no one has provided a sound, supporting argument for global warming being man-made.  In fact, I have never heard a single good supporting argument, and I strongly suspect that's because there aren't any.

To whoever said global warming is a scare tactic used so scientists can continue to have jobs, you are correct.

To whoever said human CO2 output completely dwarfs the output by industries, thank you for using common sense.

Not to mention that we would be so lucky to have average temperatures rise.

One of the most important things I've learned is that the media is very, very powerful...

Yes. Please read my link. It will turn your heads.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

BTW: The cold kills twice as many people as the heat does.

Since the 1920's deaths per year caused by extreme weather are down 95%.

"It is the greatest scam in history. I m amazed appauled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; it is a scam"

    ---John Coleman Founder of the Weather Channel speaking out on Global Warming

I can gauruntee you that I have not recieve any of my information from Al Gore nor from TV. I've spent 4 years studying Quaternary Geography at university. While it isn't paleoclimatology, it certainly doesn't make me any bit of a major authority on the issue, it certainly qualifies me to address some of the falsehoods you have said here.

Firstly, I wouldn't, nor should anyone, claim 'global warming' as a fact. A likelyhood? Maybe. But a fact? Far from it.

40 years ago, yes, some were worried about cooling. But you have to understand, there are so many factors that control the global climate other than CO2 in the atmosphere. The most glaring example would be of the dynamics of oceans and sunspot cycles(less is known about these, however).

Now, I'm with you when it comes to how silly it has become sensationalized. The problem with the is now people have become so skeptical of anyone who approaches the topic now that many credible scientists are being ignored due the 'Al Gore' effect.

Again, this certainly is not a fact and is very much still in its infancy of study, as many samples needed for comparison are very difficult to procure (floor of the Pacific Ocean), but it really is something I think we all should be aware of. After all, someone didn't just get a hunch one day based on nothing and nearly the entire scientific community thought that there was at least some merit to the hunch.

Off topic somewhat: While I enjoy this topic very much, it's something I very much hate discussing over forums because we are discussing something that is still very much controversial and this isn't exactly the best medium to exchange opinions and information. Nice break from the Console Warzz though.

Edit: Oh, I had forgotten about this: 'Oh yea, the temperature of the Atlantic ocean is ... get this COOLING...'  That's an easy one. Although the earth's temperature is undisputably rising, there are several areas of regional cooling (the same for sea level). Parts of the Atlantic are cooling overall due to the addition of cool water coming from the Gulf Stream as the result of melting glaciers.                   

I pretty much agree with you. I dont understand what your claiming is a falsehood in my post. The only thing I see if the 40 years ago putting soot on the ice caps. Even though now thats a mockery, then it was a serious possibility. I Stated it to give some perspective as to what people want to do with the global "warming" crysis. Drastic action without proper diagnosis. We could very easily look back 40 years from now and again say wtf were they talking about

I didn't mean to imply that your entire argument was a falsehood, just the two points(40 years ago and the Atlantic Ocean thin was misleading).

While I agree with you that it would have far too many radical economic implications to make any drastic actions, I certainly think that if we have money for space exploration it certainly could not hurt investing in some preventative measures here. Hell, putting less CO2 into our air will do wonders for our communities and overall improve city life regardless. Without any drastic, needlessly quick changes people could look back in 40 years and be thankful for cleaner cities and dodging a potential problem

All I'm basically saying is, we don't to to drastically change our lifestyles immediately, but it would be to our advantage to change regardless of whether or not we are contributing to global warming. It's not something we necessarily need to be screaming about, but we should certainly be cognizant of. It could be very dangerous to go to the extreme on either side of the coin, I would suggest to be a bit conservative (and I don't mean politically, boo )

AHHH! TOO... MANY... REPLIES!!! MOST... CLOSE... THREAD!
Girl: NO TWIG! It's too late!
Twig: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....