Is global warming real? (By TheBrightBlasian13 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star 5 years ago)

OR
205 votes
29 comments
image
TheBrightBlasian13 says I believe its a natural process, I meant global warming as in the belief that it is caused exclusively by humans

Votes by gender

Guys
65 votes
69.2%
30.8%
Girls
25 votes
80%
20%
Unknowns
115 votes
78.26%
21.74%

Votes by country map view

United States
119 votes
71%
29%
Australia
25 votes
84%
16%
United Kingdom
14 votes
79%
21%
Canada
9 votes
89%
11
Unknown
6 votes
83%
17%
Finland
3 votes
67%
33%
Ireland
3 votes
67%
33%
Bulgaria
2 votes
50%
50%
Netherlands
2 votes
100%
Sweden
2 votes
100%
Czech Republic
2 votes
100%
Singapore
2 votes
100%
Turkey
2 votes
50%
50%
Brazil
1 vote
100%
Croatia
1 vote
100%
Israel
1 vote
100%
Russia
1 vote
100%
South Africa
1 vote
100%
Iraq
1 vote
100%
Greece
1 vote
100%
Saudi Arabia
1 vote
100%
Taiwan
1 vote
100%
New Zealand
1 vote
100%
Hong Kong
1 vote
100%
China
1 vote
100%
Germany
1 vote
100%
Unknown
1 vote
100%
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    CrazyxHorse1 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Connecticut, United States
    But Scotland didn´t notice the change yet.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    guest from Bracknell Forest, United Kingdom
    Bugger, I didn't read the author's note first. Partly GW is natural, but the problem comes with all the pollution that humans create, and not just greenhouse gases.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    I did not read your author's comment..
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    bagel1 Silver MedalBlue Star from Ohio, United States
    only oil companies and those who believe every propaganda show on TV would say no
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    guest from Texas, United States
    Also evolution is not an omnipotent force. Evolution requires a creator because it has no begining. There must be existing life to cause evolution. Something does not come from nothing, therefore evolution cannot and did not create existence or life.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    bagel1 Silver MedalBlue Star from Ohio, United States
    nothing to do with the question
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    PSA: The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life. Its not intended to explain how life came into being. Saying that it can't is not unlike saying that the theory of gravitation must be false because it doesn't explain lightning.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    guest from Texas, United States
    The equilibrium theory (May not still be considered a theory) states that, regardless the influence of man, the omnipotent force(god, the universe, etc.) that caused the world to be created the world in such a way that it will always return to the primative state in which it was formed. Argo, global warming is not a topic worth worrying over.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    ...and that theory has no evidence of any kind and is an excellent demontration of how religious beliefs harm society.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    It is absolutely real and there is definitely human involvement in it. I'm not sure how much humans influence it, but it is real.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    alexw MaleSite Owner from Ontario, Canada
    Fact: human activity has influenced the weather.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    Gareth_Bale11 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Maryland, United States
    Hear of the polar vortex
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    You mean the one that has always existed and is changing its movement patterns due to changes in glonal weather from CO2 emmissions? The one which is strong evidence of climate change? What about it?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    anameok MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from North Carolina, United States
    Pollution isnt good for our atmosphere. its the opposite of good. this shouldn't come as a surprise
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    I prefer the term 'Climate change'.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    I'm also of the notion that it is a natural process
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Well, we've proven that Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere correlates with temperature: http://goo.gl/BEwL9e, that humans have increased the Carbon in the atmosphere over the last 100 years: http://goo.gl/GQTcba, and that temperature has increased over the same period: http://goo.gl/CU76VS. So that expains why the scientific community agrees overwhelmingly that anthropogenic climate change is factual: http://goo.gl/1399Bs. The question is: why don't you?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Because we also have overwhelming evidence that the world has undergone massive climate change in the past.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    Yes: climate change which directly correlates with Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, as I already stated: http://goo.gl/BEwL9e. From what we know, this is a major engine of Climate change, and we know for certain that we are influencing it: http://goo.gl/GQTcba. If you learned to read things, making an argument would be easier.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    You go girl
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    Just because I read things does not mean I accept their statements, this is the internet after all, but I know we are affecting the climate but read the authors comment. I think most of what is changing is caused by natural process, you always act like sciece should be simply be accepted and not questioned but isn't the very purpose of science to question? That's why our scientific "facts" today are so different from what they were 100 years ago. And yes you can say its because we can read things more accurately now but that was also the case 100 years ago with science from 200 years ago. And yes you could attempt to say "this has nothing to do with the argument" butnjt has everything to do with it because if science is shown to most likely be incorrect through history does that not mean that our modern theories are statistically more likely to be incorrect than correct? And yes you could say that this is not accurate info but this is how statistics work.more scientific "facts" through the years have been proven false then have remained true so statistically it is most likely that the "facts" of global warming are incorrect. Its all about the perspectiveof what we know and what we will know
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Science denialism... the defining characteristic of barbarism. You're neglecting that, since the invention of the scientific method, we've persistantly become more and more correct. First we thought the earth was flat. We were wrong. We then thought that it was a sphere. We were still wrong. Now we know that it is an oblate spheroid. While we weren't correct on our first try, we were still less wrong. We may discover that the earth is a different shape, but we can be sure that our understanding of it today is better than it was 100 years ago. More importantly, the only way that we know that we were wrong in the past is SCIENCE discovering it. Unlike any other theory of knowledge, the scientific method is self correcting; it follows the evidence where it leads, and it adjusts itself when new evidence is found. Thats why, since the days of Galileo, humanity has progressed more in 400 years than it had for the previous 4000. How dare you criticize science through the internet. If you had your way, there wouldn't be an internet, because its built entirely off of scientific progress.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    No I love observational and technological science as we can directly see the results of said science. It is theoretical science that people take as fact that really grinds my gears.and just because something is accepted does not make it proven. We know that our understanding of how electricity works in practice is correct because we have been manipulating it for years and can observe the effects of our manipulation, observational science, we observe that the environment is getting warmer and that carbon dioxide is a contributor to this. Because of this we assume that our putting of carbon dioxide into the air is causing the environment to get warmer, this is theoretical science as we can't directly manipulate the environment do test our theory as we can with electricity
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    Hold on. You accept that carbon dioxide causes climate change. You accept that we're putting a tremendous amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. You accept that the climate is changing. You even admit that humans are causing climate change. However, you think that humans are only causing some of the climate change. That's a new one. Might I ask what IS causing the remaining climate change? Before you say "the sun," I'd like to point out that solar temperatures have been decreasing over the last few decades: http://goo.gl/B0tSmx. You talk about theoretical science as if it doesn't involve observation: this is nonsensical; science is defined by observation. We've observed what has happened in the past and we use it to predict the future. This reasoning is so elementary that we use it every day: even if you knew nothing about the workings of a faucet, you would expect that water would come and of it rather than milk. That's because every faucet you've ever encountered yielded water. Discounting evidence because it is taken from the past requires you to throw out the most basic cognitive functions of pattern recognition. We recognize patterns such a "lightning strikes taller objects" and use it find that "electricity follows the shortest path". Without theoretical science, like the theory of electro-magnetism, there would be no technological science, because there would be no basis by which to make make predictions. It's obvious to everyone that your denial of basic pattern recognition is caused by your terrible case of confirmation bias and willingness to ignore evidence tat contradicts your views. That is the definition of closed-mindedness, and I have no interest in continuing to support the obvious, as I have finals to worry about.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Since you consider the internet a valid source of scientific information here are a couple of articles I would like you to take a look at. http://www.regentsearthscience.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=66&id=1016:is-global-warming-just-a-natural-cycle http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    Firstly, there's a difference between sourcing data to support your argument and calling someone else to make your argument for you. Secondly, even if you do that, you have to actually read the article that you link to. Why don't you look to the last paragraph of the first article where it says "I think there is more evidence for human influence rather than natural causes." Then look at the images under the text which clearly imply a link between CO2 emissions and climate change. That article's point was that climate is complicated to study. It doesn't reach any more of a conclusion than that on the issue because it is clearly, CLEARLY written for children. Nothing in that article posed any problem to my view at all; if that was the best you can do, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. As for the second link, the arguments fell into three categories: the irrelevant: "Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population," the misleading: "Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history." (no one claims that humans caused all the climate change ever only the climate change over the last 100 years, which is a small portion of the worlds history, so we should expect a small number), and the outright false "There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s" current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades". (they provided no sources). In case I missed something, virtually every relevant point is covered here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    The first link was to show that mine is a valid argument as the article states even though it ultimately doesn't agree with me it says that both are valid opinions. The article you linked also mainky covers points that weren't brought up in the article I linked aside from a handful.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    If the best evidence you can find is that an article written for children doesn't explicitly state that you're wrong, then your position has some terrible problems. Regardless of the points it brought up, it doesn't in any way refute my argument becayse it never addressed my point or presented any strong conflicting evidence. While its true that some of the points are not covered in my article, notice that I said "relevant points". Your article includes bizarre and extraneous arguments like "wind farms don't reduce CO2 emissions" which dont in any way reflect whether or not global warming is natural, most likely becuase they couldn't find 100 readons.