Interesting Argument About Global Warming

[Analog-X64]

This guy makes an interesting argument.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

[LMan]

IMHO the whole global warming hysteria is made by humans trying to understand things they don't (driven and exaggerated by political interests). Typical for humans: they need a scapegoat. In this case it's co2. I think that the earth's environment is far more complex, and none of us understands what's really happening or what's going to happen.

What this guy suggests is going for extremes (column A / B), favouring A "to be on the safe side". I say the truth has to be inbetween, meaning: it's important to invest $ into environmental protection where it makes sense (regardless of the global warming btw), but it's wrong to do it mindless and driven by hysteria. So if I were to place my weight on the guy's flipchart, it would lie exactly on the middle grid - it would cost some, but it wouldn't come to either extremes. Look into the past where there has been hysteria - the outcome is generally different from the predictions. It's always important to remain rational.

[datucker]

On the contrary, I found this quite interesting:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU

[Romeo Knight]

However, most serious scientists know that the global warming is a natural development due to the sun activity.

[Makke]

I'll say what I always say in this debate:
Global warming is a fact, it's getting hotter. Why? We don't really know. It may be caused by humans, it may be "natural" causes heating the earth. Either way, I'm pretty sure human pollution doesn't help.

Regarding the vid posted by Analog-X:
He leaves out a lot in the top left square. Global depression will also cause economic, social, environmental and health issues as well. They pretty much go hand in hand. It may even go so far as to a full scale global war, which is never good.

Just felt he left a few bit out there, but as you might understand I'm in the take action column anyway. Especially considering eliminating fossilbased fuel. Because if we don't start detaching ourselves from our oildemand, I'm pretty sure we'll end up in a global depression anyway, with more wars fought over fuel.

Then again, if it gets too hot, we can always cancel it out with nuclear winter. Just like in Futurama.

Just my 2 cents.

[Makke]

On the contrary, I found this quite interesting

Ah. Quite interesting indeed.

They have, imo, "better" arguments than the guy in the vid AnalogX posted. Then again, my knowledge in global climate is so utterly small I'm unable to tell if they're right or wrong. But it's an interesting argument, that indeed very rarely is lifted up in the media - unless it's to ridicule it.

[xo]

See the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Nevertheless, even if this is all hysteria, I'm convinced something good will come of it. Increased energy independence, renewable sustainable energy systems.

Regardless of whether climate change (which nobody argues against) is mainly the result of humanity, nature in general, the sun, etc, what remains is that we have a problem to deal with. Flooding, food, increased energy demands due to emerging countries like China and Indial.

In the end it really doesn't matter whether we caused the problem, we have to deal with it. If mass hysteria is the way forward, then I'm all for it.

The danger is with sources like biofuels that they can outcompete food crops so that food prices rise to extreme prices.

I'm all for nuclear (not nucular) driven hydrogen creation and wind/wave/sun energy.

Let's get this show on the road.

[Romeo Knight]

Just don't forget: You can't earn a lot money with sunspots - but you can with reducing CO2.
(Which doesn't mean I'm on the anti-acting site, I definitely agree with Makke. I just don't like people/organisations that construct huge lies for their own financial profit. And that's what is done exactly at the moment.)