Shouldnt there be a debate instead of mudslinging with global climate change?
trying to be neutral, have the proponents of both sides come foward with verifyable facts, unaltered and unopinionated studies, come together and provide a scientific debate or consensus as to what level things are actually occuring, instead of one dismissing the other and causing actions that could be harmful and destructive to many cultures.
2009-11-08T03:44:01Z
heres the thing the amount of human interaction can not be determined being that we are using what is on this planet in a closed environment, but lets say for a second that the closed environment expands because more of its solid matter oh say expands causing more atmosphere and thus more surface area of the atmosphere and allow for greater heating and cooling capacities, wouldnt the scales be on an exponentially smaller scale than the linear one used by both sides?
2009-11-08T09:09:25Z
to be neutral have someone that knows nothing about the subject but scientifically is knowledgable.
MTRstudent2009-11-08T11:58:37Z
Favorite Answer
We have had decades of debate in scientific journals. Unfortunately, the real debate requires hard work and a high level of scientific understanding. It is not easy reading and so the popular media do not cover it properly. If you wish to look through it, i suggest you check the archives of scientific journals. Here are the two most respected scientific journals in the world:
http://www.sciencemag.org http://www.nature.com
Geophysical Research Letters, The Holocene, PNAS, Transactions of the Royal Society, Climatic Change, Journal of Climate are also respected sources with plenty of climate research in them.
What are you talking about? You have your debate right here on this site, at many other blog websites, at the water cooler at work and school. What kind of debate are you looking for? Debate amongst who? By whom?
The political debate is raging. The public debate is ongoing by those interested in the subject. There is no debate within the expert scientific community however. The research on all matters that pertain to AGW continues to evolve and add to our knowledge base. Some of this research forces us to ask new questions that go to the details of what is happening and what to expect in the future, but the core science based in fundamental physics is not in any dispute at all.
What you want, I presume, is for Al Gore to debate Lord Monckton...what a joke that would be. Two non-scientists trying to win a debate using debating tactics when neither is truly qualified to discuss the science in detail.
Yes, however the proponents refuse to debate, they claim the science is settled.
We, the skeptics, are simply stalling now. The weather proves us right, the Copenhagen treaty proves the conspiracy theorists right, every time Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and Jacques Chirac open their yaps, the conspiracies are further confirmed.
The weather station frauds prove that the science is flawed. So-called peer reviewed papers only confirm that Dana1981 agrees with Antarticice (two self-proclaimed scientists here on answers).
Global warming has joined Scientology as just another pseudo religion. Until they engage the skeptics in actual open debate, it will continue to be nothing more than a cult.
EDIT: Tesla's was only the greatest mind of the modern era. Without him, none of our modern luxuries and conveniences would have been possible. On the other hand, The Theory of Relativity is unprovable. Get a clue Paul.
Problem is I just don't see what can be done about it. Alternative energy is just not that great. There are so many more people today using energy than there was 50 years ago and global warming is suppose to be a problem that started further back than that. Even if you passed laws that cut us back it still would not make a big enough dent in co2 emissions. So if is was a problem starting so long ago how could we cut back energy usage further back than that.
It just is not going to work. Are you going to start saying people have to apply for a car and then deny 50% of the people to buy a car. Say if someone goes over so much power usage in a day then swicth off their electricity till the next day. Energy efficient appliances just won't make the dent we need to stop the emmisions.
All this is where the mud slinging comes from. So many want the co2 emisions to stop, but they don't because right now it can't be done on a large enough scale.
Power companies need money to survive to pay its workers, people want power for their homes so they pay for it. Solar panels and wind turbines are expensive and don't give much power so people don't buy them for their homes. Electric cars don't have much power and take several hours to recharge so people don't buy them. This cycle goes on and on and on and it makes people mad so they blame the whole thing on something else.
Until a major breakthrough is made on the alternative energy front, then this is going to continue, making people mad and slinging mud, but nothing will be done about it anytime soon and that is the reality of it. It's like getting mad because the sky is blue and you want it some other color.
This confusion always happens when liberal minds suppress truth and control the media so only their theology is taught. right now the planet is losing 3% of its heat every year because that is how much the sun has cooled. So in 3 years the world has cooled to where it was in 1918 and in less than 10 years more if the sun remains quiescent we will be equivalent to the Dalton solar minimum of 1816 where they had easter parties on the thames in downtown London. But then as it has been for thousands of years the central purpose of liberalism is keeping certain people that had the right ancestors in political power no matter how ignorant and corrupt they are. Where moderates and conservatives feel that only the most honest and intelligent should be allowed to hold political office the liberals laugh and humiliate honest men with lies and distortions to keep honesty suppressed.
Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum