Effects of Global Warming - [Closes 8/4/08]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homoevil

Okay then, as you're ignoring everything I've been saying let's start over. I've already presented evidence, to what I feel is sufficient, to conclude that the levels of carbon dioxide that we have put into our atmosphere has amounted to the various effects of global climate change.

It is only fair that the burden of proof shall be laid upon the sceptic, so there we go I am now going to lay the burden of proof on you Undertaker.

Please, with all of your extensive knowledge, present a compelling case against this human-induced climate change, including scientific research and studies, facts and figures, graphs, quotes or any sufficient evidence that you wish to give.

I am disatisfied with the ignorance in this thread so far, it is only just that we hear your side of the story, from there I will review your case and present more evidence of my own for it. Until then, it is down to you to prove me wrong.

Considering you've not had your turn to present any feesable argument yet, I think you should do it now, agreed?

---

You are the one ignoring it. I have asked to not to link me to newspaper propaganda sites or present graphs which are made by the people who believe in it. I want YOU to give me examples of the effects we are experiancing due to the supposed melting of the pole/s. You can mention the summer 2007 flooding, there's loads!

So please do give me examples because it seems so far you can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

You are the one ignoring it. I have asked to not to link me to newspaper propaganda sites or present graphs which are made by the people who believe in it. I want YOU to give me examples of the effects we are experiancing due to the supposed melting of the pole/s. You can mention the summer 2007 flooding, there's loads!

So please do give me examples because it seems so far you can't.

---

Okay I can't be bothered now. Why the hell am I going to name some, when you seem to already know them? Why are you focusing on me just telling you some natural disasters? Is it because they're the only things you can actually contradict with real answers for?

You are acting moronic, and idiotic, and it shows through so blindingly. Everything you've been saying is junk, you're denying all evidence because you obviously can't explain it and you have absolutely no idea about how to perceive evidence and apply it to global warming.

Here is a lesson for you (hopefully you'll read it): if you admit you are wrong, and if you accept evidence from the opposing side, you will learn, and you will adapt your own opinion from your own knowledge. Debates like this shouldn't be about who is right/wrong, or who proves who wrong/right. They should be about gaining knowledge from different people to shape and define, or even change your original opinion.
Your immaturity shows through so horrible when you claim that my evidence is nothing by Greenpeace propaganda. I purposely seek out information that contradicts global warming so that I have two sides of the story, otherwise I'll just have a narrow-minded, biased view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homoevil

Okay I can't be bothered now. Why the hell am I going to name some, when you seem to already know them? Why are you focusing on me just telling you some natural disasters? Is it because they're the only things you can actually contradict with real answers for?

You are acting moronic, and idiotic, and it shows through so blindingly. Everything you've been saying is junk, you're denying all evidence because you obviously can't explain it and you have absolutely no idea about how to perceive evidence and apply it to global warming.

Here is a lesson for you (hopefully you'll read it): if you admit you are wrong, and if you accept evidence from the opposing side, you will learn, and you will adapt your own opinion from your own knowledge. Debates
like this shouldn't be about who is right/wrong, or who proves who wrong/right. They should be about gaining knowledge from different people to shape and define, or even change your original opinion.
Your immaturity shows through so horrible when you claim that my evidence is nothing by Greenpeace propaganda. I purposely seek out information that contradicts global warming so that I have two sides of the story, otherwise I'll just have a narrow-minded, biased view.

---

No you are the one avoiding the questions, giving me lot's of newspaper site links isn't going to make your case right. You refuse point blank to give me examples of natural disasters caused by the global warming idea. I think your refusing to give them because there is an answer for why they happened and it's not Global Warming.

I have defined my opinion on Global Warming, infact I used to believe in it 100% - then I realised reading newspapers/eco friendly sites won't give me a balanced arguement. So I thought to myself if Global Warming is real then why does the pole melting matter when in it's original/normal state it has forests on? - Why did the floods in Britain happen? - We built on flood plains and didn't build good enough drainage. Why does Bangladesh have terrible flooding? - due to most of the country being next to rivers and being below sea level. Why did Hurricane Katrina destroy New Orleans? - due to it being beow sea level and all of the marsh being destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biohazard

I heard something on Kerrang or Radio 1 (Can't remember) a while back about global warming. And one thing this scientist said made me think, and he is 100% correct. Global warming won't happen as bad as expected!

Okay, i'll explain... When you're in a bath, the water is quite high, because you're already in it. But when you get out, the water lowers, because you were part of the 'object'. So think of the ice caps, almost all of the ratio of ice is UNDER the water, so its already in there, so when it melts, it will stay the same. But wait, it actually goes lower! Everyone knows that ice is more dense than water, so when the ice melts into water, it drops in density.

:8

---

Wrong, Ice is LESS DENSE than water.

It's the reason ice floats ;)

Global Warming is natural and people getting all fussed over it are silly.

They say are world is getting hotter but this has been going on for millions of years.

There was an ice age - Then the ice melted - MEANING IT MUST HAVE WARMED UP. Then it got cold and another ice age came - THEN IT WARMED UP.

This is why Global Warming could be slowed down but by slowing it down 1/4 of the world does NOT help.

ignorance ignorance ignorance!

i think this snow proves global warming is a load of phooey

This is natural for the world , were only adding somewhat 7% to the process , When thet say most of the world will be underwater is total rubbish the ice caps are about half a mile under water and ice has a higher density meening when it melts the level will lower like when you go into a bath similar prospect

This is an interesting article I read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770