Global warming is real. Argue with me, I dare you!

I have a debate coming up in religion class on global warming. Would anyone like to try and convince me that global warming is NOT real? Any help would be appreciated. (Plus: I always love demolishing someone's argument with my Hammer of Peer-Reviewed Articles). :P

sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 138Next »
The problem is, everyone is debating about how''' global warming is caused. Some think it's natural. Most think we are causing. Then there are the complete loons who walk around blindfolded and say it doesn't exist. The loons aside, we are arguing about the wrong thing. How it began means very little. We should be coming up with a solution. If the people in charge continue to tell eachother their theories are wrong, it's really caused by this, then waders will be the newest fashion statement by the time we get to solving the problem.
ll.1310 years ago
The world gets warmer then it gets colder, simple. The great freeze of the 1970's? (at least sometime or another, it's in Winter Holiday - Auther Ransom) it'll happen again when the time is due.
megziewoodles10 years ago
It doesn't really make a difference whether global warming exists or not. As long as we're still pumping nasties into the atmosphere, we're still probably all gonna die of cancer. Plus, the sky isn't as blue as it used to be, and that makes me sad.
Yeah, me too. Spent a couple weeks last summer in NYC. Very glad to be back in the boonies. What a crazy hell-hole.
Metal4God10 years ago
global warming does exist but were not causing it if we are causing it then whats causing it Because theres we've never been to mars and there is no such things as Marshins so argue with me I Dare You then argue with Glen Beck he take global warming out of you.
royalestel10 years ago
How'd your debate go?

This topic has gotten me reading and researching more. The more I read the more I'm convinced there is probably an increase in global surface temperature, and it's caused by something other than greenhouse gases.

My primary concern about the anti-Global Warming movement is the hysteria. The baseless fears in turn tends towards virulent reaction to any dissenters from the group think. I normally wouldn't even be bothered by that, but with seeming millions of people advocating dangerous things like CFLs in every house, and oppressive things like "carbon taxes" to offset a mythical problem, I get a little worried. Some of these measures would surely, obviously cause problems without being able to show any progress towards solving the "problem" as they see it, of global warming.

Anybody remember the ozone hole thing from the 90's? Yeah, turns out CFCs were better for the ozone hole than the propellants we now use in their place. Classic example of the cure being worse than the disease, although, I don't even think that the ozone hole was a problem, either, considering it's cyclical nature. Again, the problem was that we took measures without thinking them through and without really understanding what we were fooling with. We banned CFCs because we could, with no serious thought to whether we should. Jurassic Park, anyone? There are factual deaths in millions for many other real, substantive, non-theoretical problems that we would be far better expending our resources towards solving.

I say, let us all work towards safer driving and save some actual lives.

Enough worrying about melting ice.
carbon (author)  royalestel10 years ago
Actually, we ended up not holding the debate at all. Or at least, there wasn't an official debate. :P We all had an ongoing discussion as we went about our day. Having read the information presented here, I was very well prepared.

Anybody remember the ozone hole thing from the 90's? Yeah, turns out CFCs were better for the ozone hole than the propellants we now use in their place.

I'm guessing that they're worse in the long-term? (Because no one cares about the long-term effects anymore...)
It was discovered that the biggest culprit to Ozone depletion is Methane gas. The most widely agreed cause of the hole in Antarctica is attributed to the warming of the earth causing more methane to be produced from the floors of the rainforest's. It is a natural occurrence but the debate is Co2 and GW accelerating it.. If we were to take the knee jerk reaction we would chop down the rainforest's I am kidding by the way....but it does make you think....are all the forest fires lately natures way of protecting its self? .
Yeah, turns out CFCs were better for the ozone hole than the propellants we now use in their place.

Not so sure about that - can you link us up to your research, I'm curious to learn more? While I haven't heard that claim - I have heard the claim that they contribute to GW but not to extent of some other gases. So I guess yes, the cure is worse than the disease if you're following GW :p

But, for thuroughness - here are charts of CFCs, HCFCs and HFC's - note that the ozone depletion index on HCFCs is never greater than .1 and all HFC's are 0 (no chlorine or bromine)

CFC - Banned
HCFC - Banned

As for remembering it in the 90's.... Really, a lot of us won't remember when it started because the bans started in the late 70's :p But that allowed the use/sale of the chemicals with an import tax :p The late 90's brought the final ban on either CFC-11 or CFC-12 (or maybe both?), I don't recall (that was over 10 years ago :p).

I say, let us all work towards safer driving and save some actual lives.

I vote for bike riding :p Especially considering the average weight in the US is overweight :/
I remember well the big push that resulted in the final ban of CFCs and the labels on the cans "CFC Free" the new styrofoams, etc. You're right Treb, I got it mixed up. People that think greenhouse gases cause global warming believe the cure is worse than the disease in the case of CFCs. Sheesh.
1-10 of 138Next »