• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Global Warming: A debate that I will win.

~atp~

TRIBE Member
The debate: "Human beings are undoubtedly having a significant and serious effect on the global climate (mean temperature) and the global climate in the last 20 or 30 years has seen a tremendous increase in average temperature."

There's two points there:

1) Average temperatures in recent years have been unlike anything we have seen previously.

2) Humans are most likely the cause of observed increases.


I could have thrown this at the general forum, but it would have reduced itself to levels of silliness very quickly. Well, it seems more likely, anyway.

My claim is that the above two points, especially number 2, are highly unlikely. I am here to debunk your silly misconceptions about the realities of the meme "Global Warming". I'm here to tell those pundits that they're WRONG. And I'll prove it.





And, if I don't get any response from this thread in the near future, I'll start laying out a few of the arguments that will hopefully generate discussion. I come armed to the hilt with research and resources, so be ready to confront this shit head on. And no, you can't just cut-n-paste Monbiot articles because he's a dumb-ass and a fear-mongering whore. :D
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
It's an idea that has not been proven in the same regard as CFC-Ozone dilemma, therefore it's still a theory.

Regardless what the deal is, I think preventative action should always be taken, reactionary action is always conducted in the wrong light with the wrong momentum behind it.

I know you've argued this before, and I'm sure this is in light of the news coverage of the arctic shelves cracking, but I'm interested in hearing a synopsys of your proof & ideas.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by luvslife
Of course you can debunk these two claims. That doesn't mean it;s not true.
If I prove they are false, demonstratably, then they are not true. Are you my first contestant?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by OTIS
It's an idea that has not been proven in the same regard as CFC-Ozone dilemma, therefore it's still a theory.

Regardless what the deal is, I think preventative action should always be taken, reactionary action is always conducted in the wrong light with the wrong momentum behind it.

I know you've argued this before, and I'm sure this is in light of the news coverage of the arctic shelves cracking, but I'm interested in hearing a synopsys of your proof & ideas.

Let me step away from the issues at hand and talk about my principled reasons for attacking the issue:

I have watched the media, the UN and governments use global warming as a meme to imply that humans are the cause for an unprecedented change in climate and that the expected (predicted) increase in climate is going to cause dramatic changes on Earth.

The science behind this is lacking, and heavily motivated by politics. My problem is that Kyoto is being implemented based on bad science; it is much like the Iraq issue, but less extreme: Bush stated that he invaded Iraq for certain reasons, but we are lead to believe otherwise. Kyoto is not an honest policy. Therefore, I disagree with it in principle. Because the policy is dishonest, I firmly believe some consequences are:

1) People will not be able to respond appropriately to decisions made by our government because we do not know the facts.
2) The government will use Kyoto as a political bargaining tool, in order to discredit other governments who are against the policy.
3) It is another way of creating fear in the public.

What I find interesting is that these very principles are the ones that dissidents and activists fight for, but when a policy comes along that serves their interest, they become far less critical and jump on the meme bandwagon. I find this to be hypocritical.



I firmly believe I am correct on the issue. I challenge people to challenge my views. If no one jumps on this, as I said, I'll start throwing down a few arguments that we can toss about.


EDIT: I am all about finding things that are "true". Some truths cannot be proven, however many can. If the Kyoto protocol put more focus on truths we accept, such as pollution and sulphuric emissions, etc, then that would be one thing. But the pretext for this policy is not based on a truth, in any sort of probabilistic form.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Let me step away from the issues at hand and talk about my principled reasons for attacking the issue:

I have watched the media, the UN and governments use global warming as a meme to imply that humans are the cause for an unprecedented change in climate and that the expected (predicted) increase in climate is going to cause dramatic changes on Earth.

The science behind this is lacking, and heavily motivated by politics. My problem is that Kyoto is being implemented based on bad science; it is much like the Iraq issue, but less extreme: Bush stated that he invaded Iraq for certain reasons, but we are lead to believe otherwise. Kyoto is not an honest policy. Therefore, I disagree with it in principle. Because the policy is dishonest, I firmly believe some consequences are:

1) People will not be able to respond appropriately to decisions made by our government because we do not know the facts.
2) The government will use Kyoto as a political bargaining tool, in order to discredit other governments who are against the policy.
3) It is another way of creating fear in the public.

What I find interesting is that these very principles are the ones that dissidents and activists fight for, but when a policy comes along that serves their interest, they become far less critical and jump on the meme bandwagon. I find this to be hypocritical.



I firmly believe I am correct on the issue. I challenge people to challenge my views. If no one jumps on this, as I said, I'll start throwing down a few arguments that we can toss about.


EDIT: I am all about finding things that are "true". Some truths cannot be proven, however many can. If the Kyoto protocol put more focus on truths we accept, such as pollution and sulphuric emissions, etc, then that would be one thing. But the pretext for this policy is not based on a truth, in any sort of probabilistic form.
Yes but your assuming that Kyoto was sold as a sollution and a complete sollution. This was never its intent, it was a targeted approach to reducing green house emissions. The argument being that we can reduce the amount of CO2 we generate without adversly effecting our lives making only minor changes. Kyoto is about putting a cap on an ever increasing amount of CO2 emissions. Its not meant to cover all bases and its not meant to be a complete sollution. Obviously the costs and methods of implementation are unkown and some will be more effective than others.

One does not have to link an increase in CO2 emissions directly to global warming. We can ignore global warming entirely and still argue a reduction in CO2 is a welcome change. We can ignore the environmental impacts (both pro and con (if there were any)) and Kyoto still makes sense purely from an air quality index and acid rain perspective.
 

Vote Quimby

TRIBE Member
Pick up "The Sceptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomnorg.

He's a statatician who crunched the numbers provided in studies by scientists claiming Global warming.

He cam e to a different conclusion. Of course he's been raked over the coals by the greens for spreading "lies".

I haven't read the book yet, but it certainly has created a lot of dialogue.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Yes but your assuming that Kyoto was sold as a sollution and a complete sollution.
No I assumed nothing there. Don't react yet, read on with what I have to say...

This was never its intent, it was a targeted approach to reducing green house emissions. The argument being that we can reduce the amount of CO2 we generate without adversly effecting our lives making only minor changes. Kyoto is about putting a cap on an ever increasing amount of CO2 emissions. Its not meant to cover all bases and its not meant to be a complete sollution. Obviously the costs and methods of implementation are unkown and some will be more effective than others.
The Kyoto protocol asks, in its essence, for a 5% decrease in CO2 emissions from major industries. The implementation is always flexible, you and I both understand that the protocol isn't set in stone.

But my point still stands. Kyoto is based on fallacious principles. Let me clarify with a parable: what if I got everyone in Canada believing that in two weeks, it was going to rain frogs. Furthermore, what if I ratified an agreement that forced everyone to buy special $30 umbrellas that could protect people from these falling frogs.

No big deal right? If I'm wrong, hey, you're out 30 bucks. If I'm right I just saved your ass. But the whole notion is preposterous in the first place, and there exists potential for such a protocol to be leveraged in the political/global community for other things.


One does not have to link an increase in CO2 emissions directly to global warming. We can ignore global warming entirely and still argue a reduction in CO2 is a welcome change. We can ignore the environmental impacts (both pro and con (if there were any)) and Kyoto still makes sense purely from an air quality index and acid rain perspective.
No, the main purpose of Kyoto is to reduce CO2 emissions, although it does stipulate regulations for other fluorocarbon emissions.

Do you think CO2 is a pollutant? If so, why? Please explain. Maybe that can be our starting point. :)

Also, I would like to point out that Kyoto is not really what I'm debating in this thread. That's much more political and ambiguous, and could be effectively argued as Ditto is doing. I'm talking about the misconceptions surrounding global climatology.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Vote Quimby
Pick up "The Sceptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomnorg.

He's a statatician who crunched the numbers provided in studies by scientists claiming Global warming.

He cam e to a different conclusion. Of course he's been raked over the coals by the greens for spreading "lies".

I haven't read the book yet, but it certainly has created a lot of dialogue.
I've read some of this. His examples are very carefully laid out and almost unbelievable. What makes him appealing (I think) is that he is more leftwing...

I don't want to talk too much about the politics of Kyoto or the IPCC. I want to focus on the science here, even though this is a political forum. We all need to teach AWARENESS. That's what's important.
 

luvslife

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
If I prove they are false, demonstratably, then they are not true. Are you my first contestant?
No, I will not be.

I really don't care whether the climate changes are being cause by humans or natural cycles. What humans do to this earth is wrong, and it will inevitably cause some serious reprecussions.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by luvslife
No, I will not be.

I really don't care whether the climate changes are being cause by humans or natural cycles. What humans do to this earth is wrong, and it will inevitably cause some serious reprecussions.
Are there any significant climate changes at all? Why do you feel that there are (or are not)?

And if you live with the implicit assumption that what "humans do to this earth is wrong" then I claim that this is a fallacy and if you also assume that it is "inevitable" that there will be serious repercussions than I would also claim that it is a fallacy.

If you do not want to bother with an argument that excludes logic or any basis in scientific theory and fact, fine, don't bother contributing to this thread! ;)

(Hey, I'm not being mean, just pragmatic)
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Nice thread. :)

Only 30 years ago, scientists who studied climate change were warning of global cooling and the possibility of a coming Ice Age. Imagine if world leaders had decided to hammer out a Kyoto-like agreement, even pre-emptively, to bring in measures to stop global cooling? Imagine if the measures ended up costing billions or trillions of dollars? We'd all be pretty upset when the scientific "consensus" changed to a prediction of global warming, eh?
 

Adam

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
But my point still stands. Kyoto is based on fallacious principles. Let me clarify with a parable: what if I got everyone in Canada believing that in two weeks, it was going to rain frogs. Furthermore, what if I ratified an agreement that forced everyone to buy special $30 umbrellas that could protect people from these falling frogs.
So is your point then that reducing greenhouses gases is a *good* thing, but the metrics by which Kyoto is measured and the motives behind it are suspect? In other words, how should Kyoto be tweaked in order to satisfy you?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
My FINAL comment on the politics of Kyoto:

Even if, under the "Old" Kyoto agreement (which is more stringent than the July 2001 version), we meet ALL expectations stipulated within its protocol, here are the results:

1 - Assuming we use the IPCC's CO2 prediction data (which all pro-Kyoto pundits use), then the Kyoto protocol will actually reduce temperature rises by 0.1 degree celcius. That's it.

I can source this information for you, but it's all based on the IPCC numbers that the pro-Kyoto camp relies on.

I'm here to dispell the myth of climate change. Kyoto does not have anything to do with global temperature or "Global Warming". Its political motivations are questionable and the science is quite dubious. Actually, I should be clear, the IPCC reports have been distorted to serve a different purpose from that which they were intended.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Okay let's say for a second you're right, and that the burning of hydrocarbons since the beginning of the industrial revolution haven't had any effect on our planet at all. *snicker*

We're still running out of our most efficient fuel sources, and it's still getting hotter by the year.

Carry on.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Adam
So is your point then that reducing greenhouses gases is a *good* thing, but the metrics by which Kyoto is measured and the motives behind it are suspect? In other words, how should Kyoto be tweaked in order to satisfy you?
No, no you misunderstand. I'm saying that Kyoto is somehow being equated to treating the global warming "crisis". First, Kyoto doesn't really address global warming and second, there is no crisis.

Greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 in particular, is not a pollutant. What I want to argue in this thread is the science of global warming and the misconceptions everyone has about how "global warming" relates to humans.

1. It is questionable that global warming actually exists at all.
2. It is much more questionable that humans actually have any significant impact on global warming.
3. It is highly improbably that Kyoto was intended to address global warming at all, and could be far more damaging to implement than it could be to ignore.
4. Science is important. TRUTH is important. Education is important. I disagree with Kyoto in principle because it rides on the wave of a lot of fallacious ideas that are being bandied about in particular by the leftist groups right now. I want it to stop.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Sep. 23, 2003. 11:05 AM

Massive Arctic ice shelf breaks up
Laval scientists warn of `more surprises'
Ice islands could hit offshore oil, gas rigs

PETER CALAMAI
SCIENCE REPORTER

OTTAWA—The largest ice shelf in the Arctic is breaking up and Canadian polar scientists are blaming accelerated regional warming.

The startling finding, appearing yesterday in Geophysical Research Letters, the American Geophysical Union's journal, suggests the impact of climate change in the Arctic is more widespread and advanced than thought.

For two decades, scientists have recorded the collapse of massive ice shelves in the Antarctic but the study by Laval University researchers published yesterday is the first evidence of a similar climate effect in the northern polar region.

"There are likely to be more surprises like this. We simply don't understand the sea ice system in the Arctic," said John Stone, a senior climate change expert with Environment Canada.

The researchers at the Quebec city university reported the ice break-up means further loss of special habitats that shelter tiny plants and animals capable of living in extreme cold. Scientists suspect the make-up of these extremophiles holds out the promise of potentially beneficial new chemicals.

Also, floating ice islands 10 kilometres long, or longer, are likely to escape the sheet and could endanger shipping and oil and gas drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea, the scientists warn.

The fracturing Ward Hunt ice sheet is on the northwest edge of Ellesmere Island at the top of the Arctic archipelago. Now roughly one-and-a-half times the area of Mississauga, the ice sheet has existed for at least 3,000 years.

Polar expert Warwick Vincent, a Laval biology professor, said, "This is a very sudden change in a feature that's been present for a long time."

A large crack running through the ice sheet was first noticed two years by Vincent and his PhD student Derek Mueller. Using images from Canada's radar satellite and helicopter forays across the ice shelf, Mueller was able to track the break-up: "It's basically cut the ice shelf in half."

Climate records from nearby Alert show average air temperatures in the spring and fall warming by more than a half a degree Celsius every decade since 1967.

Laval researchers estimated July temperatures on the ice shelf during the past three decades averaged more than 1 C, well above the 0-degree threshold for break-up established in Antarctic research.

Break-up of the shelf also spelled the end for a unique lake in Disraeli Fjord, which stretches 30 kilometres inland. Because it blocked the top portion of the fjord's mouth, a layer of fresh water from melting snow and ice sat atop salty ocean water in the lake. Unique organisms lived in the water.

Disraeli's was the largest of these special lakes in the Northern Hemisphere. But its fresh water floated away through the 80-metre-wide crack last summer, Vincent said.

"We're really running out of time to understand these northernmost environments before more of them are lost," added the Laval professor, who holds the Canada Research Chair in aquatic ecosystem studies.

The Laval researchers conclude long-term polar warming lies behind slow disintegration of a continuous ice shelf that fringed Ellesmere as recently as 1907, when American polar explorer Robert Perry sledged across the region.

"We don't know exactly what is the straw that is breaking this camel's back," said Mueller.

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/c...le&cid=1064268612650&call_pageid=968332188492
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
Okay let's say for a second you're right, and that the burning of hydrocarbons since the beginning of the industrial revolution haven't had any effect on our planet at all. *snicker*
Okay. Great! :)

We're still running out of our most efficient fuel sources, and it's still getting hotter by the year.
Yes, we're running out of oil. This is true. It's also true that oil contributes to a lot of pollution. This is bad. I'm very much pro-alternative energy. :)

As for getting hotter by the year, precisely what do you mean by that? How do you know that? Who told you? I'm really tempted to dive into one of these topics, but I'm at work so I'm still in a "gathering phase" to see what everyone's reaction is to this thread....very interesting.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
p.s. I posted the above article not because I care that our ice caps are melting, but because I'm concerned the floating shelves will do damage to oil production.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~


How do you know that? Who told you? I'm really tempted to dive into one of these topics, but I'm at work so I'm still in a "gathering phase" to see what everyone's reaction is to this thread....very interesting.
Well, for one, our 3,000 year old (as indicated above) ice caps are melting.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

luvslife

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Are there any significant climate changes at all? Why do you feel that there are (or are not)?

And if you live with the implicit assumption that what "humans do to this earth is wrong" then I claim that this is a fallacy and if you also assume that it is "inevitable" that there will be serious repercussions than I would also claim that it is a fallacy.

If you do not want to bother with an argument that excludes logic or any basis in scientific theory and fact, fine, don't bother contributing to this thread! ;)

(Hey, I'm not being mean, just pragmatic)
First of all, i don't need to tell you that "significant" climate changes are only a couple of degrees up or down.

That is not really my point, however. I see the earth, the entire universe in fact as a system of balances.

If there is a bug, there's something that eats that bug, if there's a mammal breathing out CO2, there's a tree sucking it in...you know..

Humans throw this balance off completely. Everything we do fucks something up. Cutting down trees, changing or destroying ecosystems, polluting the air, even changing matter into energy! You don't think these actions will have consequences?
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Boss Hog
p.s. I posted the above article not because I care that our ice caps are melting, but because I'm concerned the floating shelves will do damage to oil production.
lol I appreciate your cynical remarks only because you're intelligent enough to carry an argument logically forward. ;)

So let me throw out a few comments in regards to the article. First, let's make the assumption that over the past, oh, say 100 years, we've seen an increase in average mean atmospheric temperature. Then it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the Arctic shelf breaking up could be attributed to the atmosphere warming and melting the ice. Does this imply that humans have caused the warming?

I'm heading home now. If I have a chance tonight, I'll present a researched argument on "the human influence".

;)
 

luvslife

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
Nice thread. :)

Only 30 years ago, scientists who studied climate change were warning of global cooling and the possibility of a coming Ice Age. Imagine if world leaders had decided to hammer out a Kyoto-like agreement, even pre-emptively, to bring in measures to stop global cooling? Imagine if the measures ended up costing billions or trillions of dollars? We'd all be pretty upset when the scientific "consensus" changed to a prediction of global warming, eh?
There are still people who believe that the melting of the icecaps will lead to a change in ocean currents, causing the jet stream to move south, causing an ice age (England is at the same latitude as Hudson bay, imagine they didn't have the jet steam flowing over them to moderate their temperatuers? Brrrrrrr)
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Let's get the facts straight ...

Is it getting hotter by the year? No.

Is it hotter now than the previous century? Yes.

Is it hotter now than ever? No.

Is the current rate of climate change unprecedented? No.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by luvslife
Humans throw this balance off completely. Everything we do fucks something up. Cutting down trees, changing or destroying ecosystems, polluting the air, even changing matter into energy! You don't think these actions will have consequences?
It's hard to say. Maybe. Will we be able to do anything about it (even if every country on earth devoted all its resources to the problem)? Maybe. Are humans unique in their effect on Gaia? Maybe. I like the theory of interconnectedness, it's very poignant but it doesn't imply that humans are so unique that "mother nature" can't deal with our petty contributions to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

As I said, I'm heading home. Part of the point of this thread is to create some controversy.


Very soon, I'll try and put forward a proper argument surrounding one of the MANY topics you guys have already brought forward. :)
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories
Top