Is the quickly increasing global warming from the last 10 years natural or created by humans?
51-55, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 17 more replies »
MikefromEP · 51-55, M
@SW-User The problem is over population on a top feeder loop. There is no good answer now.
SW-User
@MikefromEP I agree but people always preaching about "save the planet " the planet doesn't need to be saved because we can't even make a dent on it. That's all im saying
suburbs · 22-25, F
@SW-User
[quote]...but the same people who are preaching about it using electricity every day,drive cars,buy clothes,beauty products,using natural gas..to me it's hypocrisy..do something about it if you are so concerned. Move to a cabin,live a self sufficient life,use fire etc..until then,i will argue[/quote]
I don't think you understand what hypocrisy means. The definition of hypocrisy is: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." None of us are presenting you with moral standards (I'm not preaching about recycling, or something), we're just talking about the scientific fact that humans impact the environment, so no, we're not being "hypocritical". Second, you can still believe in scientific facts and studies without having to do actions related to those scientific facts and studies. With your logic, scientists would have to stop finding ways to cure cancer if they aren't also a doctor whose going to give the treatment to patients.
At this point I'm just going to link articles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eTCZ9L834s
https://interestingengineering.com/10-ways-humans-impact-the-environment/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/impact.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738880/
https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-changes-effects-plunder-planet
[quote]...but the same people who are preaching about it using electricity every day,drive cars,buy clothes,beauty products,using natural gas..to me it's hypocrisy..do something about it if you are so concerned. Move to a cabin,live a self sufficient life,use fire etc..until then,i will argue[/quote]
I don't think you understand what hypocrisy means. The definition of hypocrisy is: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." None of us are presenting you with moral standards (I'm not preaching about recycling, or something), we're just talking about the scientific fact that humans impact the environment, so no, we're not being "hypocritical". Second, you can still believe in scientific facts and studies without having to do actions related to those scientific facts and studies. With your logic, scientists would have to stop finding ways to cure cancer if they aren't also a doctor whose going to give the treatment to patients.
At this point I'm just going to link articles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eTCZ9L834s
https://interestingengineering.com/10-ways-humans-impact-the-environment/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/impact.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738880/
https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-changes-effects-plunder-planet
CaptainCanadia · 41-45, M
Eh, well it's pretty easy to figure out even if you're not scientific.
First, look at the people who spend their lives studying this stuff and evaluate their expertise.
Second, look [i]seriously[/i] at their integrity, political motivations, and susceptibility to corruption as a group.
Third, look at other side of the argument, and use the same criteria.
If you look at this way, [b]of course global warming is human-caused.[/b] Almost every scientist agrees with it, and the papers that disagree have results nobody can duplicate. As well, there is a LOT of money in denial because of the interests of resource companies. Meanwhile, affirming global warming costs money rather than makes it.
Also, university researchers have academic freedom, and thus the right to speak against their university and government without fear of repercussion. No hoax can survive this test.
First, look at the people who spend their lives studying this stuff and evaluate their expertise.
Second, look [i]seriously[/i] at their integrity, political motivations, and susceptibility to corruption as a group.
Third, look at other side of the argument, and use the same criteria.
If you look at this way, [b]of course global warming is human-caused.[/b] Almost every scientist agrees with it, and the papers that disagree have results nobody can duplicate. As well, there is a LOT of money in denial because of the interests of resource companies. Meanwhile, affirming global warming costs money rather than makes it.
Also, university researchers have academic freedom, and thus the right to speak against their university and government without fear of repercussion. No hoax can survive this test.
@suburbs blocked
SteelHands · 61-69, M
elVato · 46-50, M
@MikefromEP Nice.
Planktin01 · 22-25, M
@Planktin01 blocked
TheProphet · M
lakergoy · 36-40, M
Given the historical cycles i have heard of,probably both. The human factor is putting the leadfoot on the gas however, and that effect is growing more and more
ButterRobot · 51-55, M
Someone I respect tells me it's related to the solar cycle