Is Global Warming real?

You should read "why we disagree about climate change." It gives both sides of the story and presents extremely good cases for both, but in the end I have decided on global warming not being such a huge deal because the only actually scientific experiments done to directly prove or disprove global warming have come back contradicting the greenhouse effect and the general idea of global warming. It really does depend on where you look for you information, whether you watch fox news or cnn, and other factors, I just hope that those that are automatically convinced on the idea will take a quick sec and actually study and read some literature about it before they just jump right in with the idea..
 
im not going to pretend like im a expert what but higher temperatures could be the cause of the raising of CO2 levels because the colder the oceans are the more CO2 and other gases they hold and when they warm they release gas so the warmer temps could cause the raising of levels of CO2 not the other way around
 
they also dont believe in abortion- are you saying that we should jsut fuck the minority because they dont have a common agenda- and besides- non-beliveres are the minority anyway- so fuck off
 
Yeah, but this means once CO2 starts the process of temp rising you get the positive feedback going on there. Hence the relatively sharp gains and slower declines. So he's got the process right, and in reality it could go either way naturally.
I did a lab today using a study (no idea how credible, it was just for exercises in the lab for my oceanography and atmosphere course) that said many scientists still can't prove whether the temp or CO2 levels increased first in the past. Just throwing that in here in case it's relevant or anyone else has looked into this.
 
Well...

Conservatives believe that all cable news (besides Fox) has a liberal bias, as does Hollywood and all actors. Can't forget newspapers and public radio, they both have a well known liberal bias. Not so fast "intellectuals", book snobs, and "elitists". Those smart, well read a-holes are know for their liberal tendencies. And don't even get me started on the college professors and teachers corrupting the minds of our students with their dirty liberal ways. So who are the "real" Americas? They are the hard working conservatives! You know, the guys with sub high school education who vote based on the opinion of a carpenter that lived 2000 years ago. And the millionaires of the companies who want to keep every cent they have earned. Why should they have to pay taxes, they are rich!

Just my assessment, I know you are a hard core conservative and trying to convince you of everything is like trying to teach a rock how to play darts. Just think about it this way, if you didn't have your parents telling you what to think and actually thought for yourself would you think the way you do?
 
I am sorry, but from this post all I could really see is that because there are more liberals in the public (ranging from Hollywood, teachers, and other school areas like college and stuff) makes them right and because people that are rich or didn't finish high school (which is total bullshit and a complete generalization) are conservatives makes them wrong cause there are less of them.
 
you are completely 100% right, just trolling SkinMin to get a rise. I work with a shit load, overwhelming number of Fox news addicted conservatives and gotta come back sometimes. Generalizations are foolish, but seriously you conservatives got to get rid of people like Palin and the tea baggers if you want me to respect you.
 
There is a difference between Republicans and Conservatives now. Palin and the tea party people don't represent what conservative means. They just wear red and have an elephant as a logo instead of wearing blue and having a jackass aka a donkey as their logo.
 
wow. care for a second try?

im looking for a real answer as to why liberalism is grounded in reality. not some partisan, generalized, drivel. sorry.

nice poke at my intelligence, you really proved a lot with that, bravo.

you know what equally as hard, convincing liberals that whats mine is mine, and not yours ;)
 
im not looking for a shit storm. im looking for an honest, well thought out explanation of your astonishing claim stating that liberalism is grounded in reality.

help a non believer to understand.

the burden of proof is on you, not i.

(otherwise you get an "ORLY" owl. haha)
 
oh shit not the owl.

It was actually a quote from Colbert's White House Correspondent speech.

if embedding works

 
so now a satirical news anchor is a political philosopher, shit, even a commentator?

ill stick with the likes of Rand, Jefferson, Locke, Adams, Krauthammer, Hayek, Friedman, and Buckley.

do you honestly believe that liberalism is grounded in reality, and if so, how? if it was just some quip from some blowhard on TV than say so. im just curious. trying to understand your thought process.
 
Liberalism is generally grounded in the theoretical-- the future or "what could be"-- and takes a generally progressive stance; they want to progress towards the currently unattainable theoretical state of being.
Conservatism is generally grounded in the status quo-- the past or"what has always been"-- and takes a generally preservative stance; they want to preserve what has always worked and generally want to prevent problems from "fixing what ain't broke."
other than that, who the fuck cares? Global warming is probably real, though most likely not anywhere near as alarming as the extremists claim, and probably much more dangerous than those who write it off.
That said, cost benefit analysis should tell us what our next course of action ought to be. For the time being, i guess, given the current economic condition of the world, that action will probably be nothing.
 
no, no it doesn't. People can change things by voting. If everyone votes for someone like Ross Perot then, well there's no longer a 2 party system entirely...
 
agree with everything except the last sentence.

If you do a weighted cost benefit analysis.

For example lets say that global warming has a 10% chance of happening, and if it happens at the rate predicted it will cost 5,000 dollars in damage. Not using real numbers. Lets say investing in new technology will cost us 1,000 and has a 80% chance of saving us.

Do nothing

10% * 20,000 = 2,000

Invest and does not work

1,000 + (10% * 20% * 20,000) = 1,400

Invest and saves us

1,000

Working on the assumption that it is 20X more expensive to loose the majority of the coast line, famine, hurricanes, etc. than to invest in technologies that can stop and reverse global warming. Global warming might just be a small change in our generation, it is the generations to come that will have the real problem.
 
well thats the cost- benefit analysis of doing nothing forever.
Mines just the cost-benefit analysis of doing something drastic now.
I believe that in order to fix whatever problem exists, drastic action must take place. You can't just throw money in relatively small programs that eventually add up in the same way the government dealt with the Ozone Layer.
For that drastic action to occur, money needs to be spent and I just don't think America (who would obviously have to fund at least 33% of any global effort) could handle that at the moment.
But yeah, clearly the cost of doing nothing forever won't outweigh death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top