If the arctic/antarctic region have completely melted, would that convince you?

[voltio8836]

So if the arctic and antarctic regions have completely melted and devoid of ice in certain seasons, would that convince you that negative climate change was man-made?

No government in this topic. Government does nothing. Maybe citizens volunteering to do their part, but do u accept that climate change was man-made?

edit: conversely, if arctic/antarctic regions have not melted and stayed relatively the same throughout my life, and it is ok to go out into the sun all day without sunscreen, then i will believe that climate change talk is all nonsense.

[LordDarwin]

I thought the Earth was actually cooling...?

[Large_Emu]

How would that prove that it was man made? Climate change is a natural thing, we've been in and out of ice ages many times before humans were even on this earth but obviously we arn't helping with all our polution.

[voltio8836]

Originally Posted by Large_Emu

How would that prove that it was man made? Climate change is a natural thing, we've been in and out of ice ages many times before humans were even on this earth but obviously we arn't helping with all our polution.

uhhh...obviously, but if something is burning and then u dump some gasoline into it, do u really expect it to last longer?

I am just curious what it would take to believe in climate change, because I know what it would take for me to not believe in climate change.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

So if the arctic and antarctic regions have completely melted and devoid of ice in certain seasons, would that convince you that negative climate change was man-made?

If such an occurrence took place, you would, at a minimum, have to prove that never in the multi-billion year history of this planet had the same thing happened. Because if it had ever happened before, then it clearly proves that Nature, all by itself, can accomplish that result. And even if it was a first, that does nothing to conclusively prove that humans were the cause. (PS: And since your example is so wildly extreme as to border on the impossible, this thread is kind of silly).

PS: Who the hell are you to declare that arctic/antarctic regions "devoid of ice" is a Negative?

[voltio8836]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

If such an occurrence took place, you would, at a minimum, have to prove that never in the multi-billion year history of this planet had the same thing happened. Because if it had ever happened before, then it clearly proves that Nature, all by itself, can accomplish that result. And even if it was a first, that does nothing to conclusively prove that humans were the cause. (PS: And since your example is so wildly extreme as to border on the impossible, this thread is kind of silly).

PS: Who the hell are you to declare that arctic/antarctic regions "devoid of ice" is a Negative?

it is interesting you considered this impossible, yet if it happened you would still be skeptical of climate change being man-made.


and Large_Emu, it is pretty ironic you call yourself atheist yet you seem to hold faith like a religious. If the earth was completely pillaged of resources because of warming temperatures, you would probably still hold onto the premise that earth is just in a warming phase lol. It is just like religious types, if life outside earth was proven, evolution was proven, earth is round, not flat, they would still hold onto their bible.

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

uhhh...obviously, but if something is burning and then u dump some gasoline into it, do u really expect it to last longer?

Proof that mankind's activities correspond to: 'Dumping gas on the fire,' that is climate change?

Because until that is shown beyond a doubt there is nothing more to say on the matter.

[Large_Emu]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

it is interesting you considered this impossible, yet if it happened you would still be skeptical of climate change being man-made.


and Large_Emu, it is pretty ironic you call yourself atheist yet you seem to hold faith like a religious. If the earth was completely pillaged of resources because of warming temperatures, you would probably still hold onto the premise that earth is just in a warming phase lol. It is just like religious types, if life outside earth was proven, evolution was proven, earth is round, not flat, they would still hold onto their bible.

as i've said, the earth goes in and out of different climate changes every few thousand years or so, i think man is contributing to climate change but i'm not sure if it's the main reason the ciamge is changing.

[voltio8836]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

Proof that mankind's activities correspond to: 'Dumping gas on the fire,' that is climate change?

Because until that is shown beyond a doubt there is nothing more to say on the matter.

There is no proof. and it would be near impossible to prove anything either way of something this size not to mention there will always be skeptics.

However, if the earth was completely devoid of resources and almost nothing grew in most regions of the earth, would u still hold onto faith and say earth is just in its warming phase?

I am just curious what it would take to convince ppl of climate change because I already know what would convince me of not believing in climate change.

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

There is no proof.

Well the why the ridiculous question?

Here's a question for you:
"If the polar ice caps started to melt away at a drastic rate, would it convince you that Polar Bears are responsible?"

Stupid question, huh?
Considering there's no evidence that Polar Bears are responsible.

Originally Posted by voltio8836

However, if the earth was completely devoid of resources and almost nothing grew in most regions of the earth, would u still hold onto faith and say earth is just in its warming phase?

The Earth is not warming...

Correct me if I'm wrong here anyone, but I was under the impression that the Earth is in fact cooling?

Originally Posted by voltio8836

I am just curious what it would take to convince ppl of climate change because I already know what would convince me of not believing in climate change.

It would take solid evidence of causation between mankind's activities and climate change.

[dizi24]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

Well the why the ridiculous question?

Here's a question for you:
"If the polar ice caps started to melt away at a drastic rate, would it convince you that Polar Bears are responsible?"

Stupid question, huh?
Considering there's no evidence that Polar Bears are responsible.

This. Where is the connection between ice caps melting and humans causing it? The statement is completely absent of logic.

[voltio8836]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

Well the why the ridiculous question?

Here's a question for you:
"If the polar ice caps started to melt away at a drastic rate, would it convince you that Polar Bears are responsible?"

Stupid question, huh?
Considering there's no evidence that Polar Bears are responsible.

The Earth is not warming...

Correct me if I'm wrong here anyone, but I was under the impression that the Earth is in fact cooling?

It would take solid evidence of causation between mankind's activities and climate change.

So basically unless has been concrete evidence, we should just continue this route until evidence has been shown?

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

So basically unless has been concrete evidence, we should just continue this route until evidence has been shown?

Yes, until concrete evidence is shown we need not take any action.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; and as of yet this claim has yet to be proven.

[LordDarwin]

And this statement from you:

"Large_Emu, it is pretty ironic you call yourself atheist yet you seem to hold faith like a religious."

Just shows how devoid you are, of any ability to think clearly or logically. If anything Large_Emu is acting on reason and logic, and you are not.

You are the one using FAITH to determine the causation between mankind's activities and climate chance.

If anyone is an example of irony (and stupidity) you are.


/facepalm

[gjohnson5]

LOL @ 5 people saying no

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by gjohnson5

LOL @ 5 people saying no

Wow, as usual you provided solid support for your position. I'm convinced, and would change my vote if the poll allowed.

[gjohnson5]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Wow, as usual you provided solid support for your position. I'm convinced, and would change my vote if the poll allowed.

IMHO some of you wouldn't believe made made climate change under any circumstance , so why am I not surprised by your post...

[Bababooey100]

It's all BS. Earth is cyclical like everything else in the universe.

[nutsy54]

Well, clearly that huge peak in 1100 BC was caused by mass industrialization!

[all pro]

Originally Posted by Bababooey100

It's all BS. Earth is cyclical like everything else in the universe.

I'm stealing this chart. It corresponds exactly with the one I got from an oceanographic site but yours has some nice graphics to it.

P.S. what kind of SUVs do you think they where driving back in the 1300s to cause all that global warming?

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

it is interesting you considered this impossible, yet if it happened you would still be skeptical of climate change being man-made.


and Large_Emu, it is pretty ironic you call yourself atheist yet you seem to hold faith like a religious. If the earth was completely pillaged of resources because of warming temperatures, you would probably still hold onto the premise that earth is just in a warming phase lol. It is just like religious types, if life outside earth was proven, evolution was proven, earth is round, not flat, they would still hold onto their bible.

Now this is irony.



BRB worshipping at the Altar of Gore!

[ElMariachi]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Well, clearly that huge peak in 1100 BC was caused by mass industrialization!

Egyptian SUV's powered by alien technology of course. HELLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[NeAbuZe]

Global warming isn't due to man.

[LordDarwin]

Thread.

[spol8910]

Originally Posted by Large_Emu

How would that prove that it was man made? Climate change is a natural thing, we've been in and out of ice ages many times before humans were even on this earth but obviously we arn't helping with all our polution.

Exactly! I think it's funny how these environmental conservationist really don't want to protect the natural cycle of earth. They want to keep it the way it's been recently, which if you look at the history of earth, you would see that temperatures and climates have fluctuated dramatically over the course of history.

[Rockchalk0420]

Originally Posted by Large_Emu

How would that prove that it was man made? Climate change is a natural thing, we've been in and out of ice ages many times before humans were even on this earth but obviously we arn't helping with all our polution.

I agree... Now pollution needs to be taken seriously. Poisoning waterways and contaminating the air we breathe and ground with chemical pollutants is not a good thing.

[voltio8836]

Originally Posted by Rockchalk0420

I agree... Now pollution needs to be taken seriously. Poisoning waterways and contaminating the air we breathe and ground with chemical pollutants is not a good thing.

What is the difference between how u act on pollution vs how you act on global warming? Car emission release carbon monoxide which is deadly for u and contaminates the air.

wtf global warming is just a theory of what happens if u continue to pollute. So if u're stance is to take pollution seriously, then by default you must take global warming seriously, whether or not global warming is true or false doesn't matter.

[nutsy54]

Originally Posted by voltio8836

What is the difference between how u act on pollution vs how you act on global warming? Car emission release carbon monoxide which is deadly for u.

wtf global warming is just a theory of what happens if u continue to pollute. So if u're stance is to take pollution seriously, then by default you must take global warming seriously, whether or not global warming is true or false doesn't matter.

Two completely different things. Carbon Dioxide isn't "pollution" in the standard sense of the term. Nobody is freaked out (or harmed) when excess CO2 is released near our rivers and lakes, for example.

"Pollution" is directly measurable and harmful. "Global Warming" is an unproven, over-hyped hysteria.

[voltio8836]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

Yes, until concrete evidence is shown we need not take any action.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; and as of yet this claim has yet to be proven.

ok here is my proof: it is proof by induction.

If you take 1 man in a garage and let a car run for a few hours, the man will die. (case k=1)

If you take 2 man in a garage with 2 cars running for a few hours, both men will die. (case k+1)

So, if u take 6billion man in a big garage with several million cars running for several hundred years, all men will die. (case k = m)

[Large_Emu]

Originally Posted by nutsy54

"Pollution" is directly measurable and harmful. "Global Warming" is an unproven, over-hyped hysteria.

But it certainly isn't a good thing that we release so many different gases into the air.