Answer for: Global Warming: Do you care?
#1 I still don't know which side is right!
| 
11 Comments
http://www.geocraft....use_data.html
http://en.wikipedia....mperature.png
http://www.boston.co...nt_scientist/
I don't take either side at their word and I still need to research before I can make an informed decision.
Comments |
Leave a comment
http://en.wikipedia....ssment_Report
http://www.environme...24-hours/1117
http://www.wired.com...66651,00.html
http://grupthink.com/topic/10187
Thank you, I prefer to see all the evidence that can be presented (I assumed everyone knew the proponents explanation of global warming so I listed the opposing views)
Everyone knows the arguments for global warming being a legitimate concern because frankly, the deniers are almost universally considered crackpots.
I don't know, I have found that once you get away from websites that seem left-leaning, there are a lot of differing opinions (and those that concur seem to have problems agreeing with what is happening)
Can you link me to a credible source that claims global warming isn't really a problem?
Depends on your view of what's credible, did you check the websites I posted in my answer? (They provide a source for information and the last one is just an interesting article that may prove relevant)
"Some dude's fossil collecting site" (Geocraft) definitely isn't going to count as credible.
The boston.com article is an opinion piece about a global warming denier that the entire scientific community has called out as an industry-paid stooge.
Finally, the image from Wikipedia isn't clearly interpretable, nor is it accompanied by a scientist's explanation.
Anything else?
The point about "left leaning" (and right leaning) surely demonstrates that global warming is not a neutral issue for business - to reduce it means burning less fossil fuel and without other power supplies, business would be in trouble. Does this not perhaps indicate that the "right leaning" evidence for no global warming is well dodgy to say the least?
Maybe, but then you can say that environmentalists that lead a "back to earth" approach need global warming to justify reducing industry. Bringing politics into the equation distorts facts. That is why I never blindly accept either side but look at them side-by-side and try distinguish has a better argument. (Also, if the theory is true to what extent will Global Warming affect us. I have heard everything from we will fry like eggs then freeze from melted ice caps, to it will help the plants grow and create a healthier environment)
"Maybe, but then you can say that environmentalists that lead a "back to earth" approach need global warming to justify reducing industry."
You can also say that environmentalists are aliens from InXSdfsdf planted on earth to cause confusion and chaos, but without anything to back it up, I can call you crazy.
"Bringing politics into the equation distorts facts."
Where does "politics" work into the climate change debate? Isn't it pretty cut and dry science that says climate change is a very very grave problem?
"That is why I never blindly accept either side but look at them side-by-side and try distinguish has a better argument."
That's an excellent philosophy, no doubt; Keep in mind, though, there is a fine line between skepticism and denier quackery.
"(Also, if the theory is true to what extent will Global Warming affect us. I have heard everything from we will fry like eggs then freeze from melted ice caps, to it will help the plants grow and create a healthier environment)"
That's the problem with climate change - We don't know how it's going to affect us. Our weather, environment, and atmosphere rely on feedback loops so intertwined and complicated that not even the most powerful computers on the planet can accurately model what COULD happen if the median temperature of the earth were raised, say, +5F.
" Keep in mind, though, there is a fine line between skepticism and denier quackery "
True, but then research is needed to define this line :)