Big Global Warming Debate Here!!! Follow the rules listed or your argument will be dismissed as crap?

Question

I believe just so you know and the rules are:
1. No mention of Al Gore or his planes why you ask because other countries believe also so he isn't the only person who matters, he actually is scamming for money but he is scamming with a real live issue (at least I believe so, scientist believed before he did), and just because he uses energy doesn't prove global warming wrong it only proves that he is the equivelent of a preacher with a prostitute.
2. No being a jerk calling people stupid and such will not help
3. Use science and history as your arguments. Only use politics if you have real reason to

My "argument":
I don't see the point in being non eco friendly because you don't believe in global warming. Even if it was fake would it HURT anything if people went green. I am not panicking i am doing my part to help keep the earth clean and be less wasteful which is in every light a good thing.
I'm still trying to stay as unbiased as I can while still saying I believe and getting my ideas out

Thor thanks for reminding me most stuff that helps stop GW helps save money too

I agree campbel (i think that was your name) They are asking too much I am more in favor of having mandatory recycling programs and gradually switching to more efficient things

Oh yeah but isn't oil already destroying the economy that is inflating it and George Bush passed a law about medicare that economist believe will screw our economy up anyway. I saw it on some site.

Sw_46 believing the killowea thing means yo belive carbon is causing it. The floods and such were caused by catastropies which means they are not normal. Other person feel free to argue even if you don't believe

10 point to the most convincing argument for either side

Answer 1

Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever ---

By Marc Sheppard --- The American Thinker Blog --- 9 August 07

1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today. You see,
thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at
http://www.climatea udit.org/ , the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts for
those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.

Why?

It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack
computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those
wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links I've
provided. But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the
calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the
cascading effect of that error on past data.

You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email
expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place
the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that
they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station.
Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many
layers of adjustments. "

It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on.
And won.

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS
website includes this acknowledgement that:

"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of
USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by
comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to
thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment
is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"

But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year
temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is
this significant?

As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by
[GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten
warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon,
Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in
global warming after 2009 that:

"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance
after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be
hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware
of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus
distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the
newly revised GISS table.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10.
Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006).
The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer
even in the top 20.

So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?

Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count,
not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that. It's nearly impossible to
believe that when put to similar close scrutiny, global mechanisms will
stand the heat any better than ours.

Besides, as GISS hosts the reference database of choice for all manner of
enviro-mental- cases, one would think such a significant content correction
itself would spark huge news and greenie-card reevaluation, right?

Well -- as Noel asked and answered his readers:

"Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story? No, I don't either."

Perfect.

Answer 2

We know from ice core samples that historically when global warming occurred, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations also increased, but not until about 800 years later.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Many global warming deniers think this is evidence that CO2 can’t cause global warming. In fact, that’s the very first argument in the terrible Great Global Warming Swindle. On the contrary, this is actually evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are currently causing global warming. Compare the following global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration plots from 1960-Present:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

As you can see they’re both rising – not with an 800 year delay, but at the same time. If CO2 wasn’t causing global warming as was the case in the past, then why is there no 800 year delay?

This only proves a correlation between CO2 and global warming and not a causality. The reason we’ve concluded that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming (or more accurately, accelerating it) is because natural causes can’t account for the increase in global warming over the past 40-50 years. They account for most of the warming prior to that, but climate models have determined that greenhouse gases are responsible for about 80-90% of the recent global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The very first inputs into climate models were solar, volcanic, and sunspot contributions, but they simply couldn’t account for the recent acceleration in global warming. Thus climate scientists have concluded that humans are the primary cause.

Answer 3

I agree we should do what we can to use resources wisely. Oil will run out soon enough, then we will really be in a bind. But just cutting off 90% of the oil (and coal) by 2050 (which is what the global warming alarmists say we must do) would destroy the economy. It is like cuting off a babies milk before the baby is old enough to eat solid food.

Answer 4

"But just cutting off 90% of the oil (and coal) by 2050 (which is what the global warming alarmists say we must do)"

This statement shows up all the time, and it's absurd global warming denier nonsense.

What is being talked about is replacing (not "cutting off") fossil fuels with alternative energy; nuclear, solar, wind. We can do that.

Here is an affordable and practical plan to reduce global warming to a place where we can deal with the remaining effects. It was developed by hundreds of scientists working together.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Answer 5

Global warming doesn't exist. It's simply the government and media perpetual "fear" hype that replaced the cold war fears. Stupid humans!

Answer 6

Hey Envio-boy! There is a volcano in Hawaii called Kilawaeii(sp) that has been erupting since I think 78 could be wrong ? correct me and experts say it has spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmoshere than any humans could ever do! The earth will destroy us . we will not destroy it! look at the Ice ages a billion years ago and the floods a million years ago and guess what no SUV's back then!!

Answer 7

I don't care about your 10 points and I think that this global warming agenda is nonsense

Answer 8

I would love to debate global warming with you using science and history a my argument but I have already dismissed it as crap (along with Al Gore).

Answer 9

When you grow up you will realize that you have been manipulated by liberals who want to impose socialistic slavery on us all. The sun causes global warming.

Answer 10

see co2science.org

also http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm