Study rebukes skeptics: Global Warming is real.

[Livewire]

1. Biased news source. Oh yes I did. We all know the Christian Science Monitor tends to have it's own agendas.
2. It doesn't matter, if the number of inaccurate reporting stations exceeds 10% of the total, then the entire dataset is RUINED. it's not reliable enough.
3. If you really want to prove global warming, show me a warming trend that can't be attributed to normal planetary changes. What is really needed is either a control area where no humans have resided in the last century or a control planet, which is unlikely. Because there seems to be no clear control, it defies the scientific method.
4. I see strawman arguments all the time in this topic.
5. I see insufficient evidence. You automatically blame humans for global warming without proof of such. Now this might be the case if every country on the planet were in industrial revolution or post-industrial revolution. But that's not the case, there are many, many countries that may NEVER make it past industrial revolution. We may be able to pollute our own countries and the ones surrounding them, and perhaps affect the weather a bit but, there really ISN'T enough proof to back the theory that human innovation has hurt the environment.

Do you honestly believe the Christian Science Monitor, of all the things, would willingly agree to and publish a study that vindicates what people consider a liberal agenda? Really?

 

[Mr. X]

You know, the strange thing about Global Warming... Global warming, as in the name for this process, is a lie.

Global warming isn't really warming. Its actually greater extremes of weather conditions. Basically, hotter in summer and colder in winter.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You know, the strange thing about Global Warming... Global warming, as in the name for this process, is a lie.

Global warming isn't really warming. Its actually greater extremes of weather conditions. Basically, hotter in summer and colder in winter.

This.

Let's not forget that global warming and global cooling are natural processes. The Earth has experienced several episodes of warming and cooling, and yes, those did lead to extinctions. By trying to prevent the natural process of global warming, even if it is taking place, we are trying to play God.

 

[Alice]

Cooooorrect. The planet will be just fine with a layer of oil on top of it. The planet doesn't care. Species were going extinct before humans made it big, and they'll go extinct whether we're polluting the atmosphere or not. As a comedian said, maybe humans were only there because "the planet" felt like having some oil splashed about on top of it.

That's the exact opposite of what I said.

What I'm saying is that, because most people don't care about the planet, but do care about people, why are people trying to convince them that pollution hurts the planet, when it's completely indisputable that it does hurt people? Isn't that what the focus should be?

 

[Mr. X]

The whole oil splashed on earth thing? Thats good ole George Carlin right there. (If I remember right.)

As for playing god, we possess the technology to allow a person who would have died to instead continue on with his/her life. Is this playing god?

 

[Mr. X]

I know. I'd have used something else, but that was the first thing that came to me.

But still, the playing god excuse can go both ways. We can be playing god when trying to save the planet, but we can also be playing god when we are destroying it.

As for god in general, while I don't put much belief in religion I do remember from church something about treating all of god's creations with respect. If Genesis is truthful, then the planet it also his creation. Somehow, intentionally causing harm to the planet doesn't seem to to be very respectful.

And just so you know, I'm Agnostic. Not Atheist.