(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); When I speak of Global Warming I am not referring to the basic CO2 released by man. I am speaking of the more immediate threat idea posed by some. Now, first off I would like to point out there are peer reviewed papers on both sides, both with much scientific detail involved.

Global warming is a natural occurrence. It's been going on for thousands of years, that's how the earth fixes itself.

To a certain degree, yes. It does occur naturally, but at the same time, we accelerate the process, which can't be healthy for the delicate balance of the earth.

My thoughts? As things are going now, there will be drastic side effects. Maybe not now, not in a decade, or even a century, but the delicate balance that keeps us alive WILL be broken by us. Is that to say we should make it our top priority to attempt to reverse or stop the process? No. At this point, the side effects are obvious and unavoidable, we can only hope that we (as a species) survive our mistake and learn to not do it again.

According to everything I've read Global Warming is happening and is due to human interaction. The facts unfortunately are very easy to muddy when they quite clearly will damage the ecconomy. When big conglomerate companies realised global warming issues and environmental changes will ultimately hurt their bottom lines, they paid off people and skewed numbers to make it seem as though global warming is either less of an issue, not caused by industrialised humans or not happening at all.

At this point there's a lot of misinformation on the issues, and I used to claim that if you don't think it's happening or don't think it's our fault, then you haven't read enough. But honestly, this is a very hot button issue that few people truly understand, however I can tell you, at current trends, in our lifetime we may well see the loss of the polar icecap which will cause untold flooding and moving of the coastline, and an incredibly large dustbowl effect, especially in south eastern USA and southern France/northern Italy causing both famine and drought.

In the end, I always come down on the side of the Evironmentalists here and say we should make an effort to stop global warming, because even if we're wrong all we're left with is cleaner air, more fuel efficient vehicles and water that doesn't mutate our children, and I don't see anything wrong with that. When you think about it, we've only got one Earth and if there's even a chance we could be f*cking it up shouldn't that be something everyones concerned with no matter what you believe. After all, it's not about who's right and who's wrong... it's about making sure we're all still here to disagree.

actully, it's global cooling. In 20 years the south atlantic drift will shut down (brings all warj air to UK) and make britain incredibly cold.
Also NASA recently done a scan of some sort (cant remember off top of my head) and proved its not nearly as bad as first thought. also if scientists WANTED to they COULD stop this myth.

It's not a myth, why would you think that it is?

Oh and just because one place, even one whole country would cool down, it doesn't mean GLOBAL warming isn't happening. The atlantic currents would make BRITAIN very cold is they where disrupted, but Britain hardly constitutes the entire Globe does it?

Us Humans didnt help things out at all by releasing bad things into the atmosphere but we are doing are best to help stop it. But ice core samples show that it is a natural occuring process the earth gets warmer and then it gets colder. I personnally believe scientists just used it as an excuse to suck more money out of the Government (us tax payers).

Don't be so f*cking stupid. Scientists don't get to keep the money spent of carbon-emissions lessening measures you fool. The government isn't bribing scientists to use their magic anti-warming ray on the ice-cap. The money goes to multinational corporations who are then forced to spend it on methods of reducing polution in their plants. In fact EVERYONE ends up out of money because of Global Warming because it's a f*ck load cheaper to just f*ck up the planet. If you think Global Warming is nothing more than an extortion racket created by "scientists" then you're damn moron. You act as though as a "tax payer" you're being ripped off. Grow the hell up. Chances are if you're on NGU you're under 18, unemployed or a student in which case you don't pay tax. If by some miracle you're one of the 1% of NGU users over the age of concent and actually has a job perhaps you should be more concerned with the Government paying for things like pointless wars in foreign countries, abstinence only sex "education" and a war on drugs that does nothing but pad out jail cells. Trust me when I say there are much bigger wastes on the tax docket, environmentalism is hardly the one to complain about.

Okay, it's not a myth. It's over exaggerated then.



Source: You must login or register to view this content.

Okay, how about now we have a civil debate about this. Rather than swearing, Also trying to make your self better than everyone else? I'm 16, 17 in september i'm A* in physics. I Go to school, i have a job. So, i guess the only difference is you pay taxes? Now stop thinking everyone elses opinion is wrong, because it isn't the same as yours?

This is the point where you explain why it's over exaggerated, you can't just claim it is and assume that's good enough. You need multiple sources with scientific data that disproves global warming as it is understood today. Now, granted, the original global warming issues that where raised 10 years ago are an exaggeration but not due to purposeful misinformation but due to innaccuracy of results and a lack of testing. In science we refine our testing methodology and as such refine our results


This source is not good enough and I will explain...

Rarely is a new source reliable, news is often gathered and written in either a sensationalist (fearmongering or conspiracy insinuation) or polarising manner (so in this case decidedly pro- or anti- carbon emission regulations), the reason for this is it sells more papers, sells more magazines, improves TV rating or in the case of a website, increases web traffic. They care about their ratings not the truth. So when examining the news we should look at their sources and decide if they're giving them in a true light or if they're twisting them.

In the cases of these results, we actually have a second hurdle. The person reporting works for something called The Heartland Institute. With a little research I was able to find the the Heartland Institute is a political organisation that supports various ideals, most specifically free market enterprise. They are a decidedly libertarian group and as such would be feircely against global warming regulations concerning carbon emissions because it would be perceived as government intervention and stifling of free market enterprise. Wether global warming is happening or not, they would still not support regulations, so under these ideals it is in their best interests, and the interests of their investors and donators to downplay global warming in order to convince people that regulations on carbon emissions are unnecessary. They clearly have an ulterior motive and as they're not a peer reviewed journal have no requirements towards integrity so can effectively print whatever they like. That said they won't outright lie...

...a direct quote from the peice says as follows.

"The study indicates far less global warming will occur in the future than United Nations computer models have predicted and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

This doesn't indicate that Global Warming is not happening, nor does it say that it's not caused by humans. Only that it's less than expected by UN computer models. At no point does it clarify how much "far less" is, it could be half as much, it could be 20% less... who knows, but without cold hard data nothing can be clarified. It also doesn't state which UN computer models or "alarmists" this study is referring to. Meaning all we can glean from this information is there is less Global Warming according to this study, than some unknown alarmists predicted in an unknown UK computer model released at an unknown time. For christ sake, they could be referrencing the studies from 2002 that we know are completely wrong because they where disproved by the Royal Geological Society back in 2007, at which point it could easily be purposeful scapegoating to try to gain public support.

The reliablity and veracity of any source must be considered before you base an opinion on it, as someone who later goes on to boast about having an A* in physics (whoop-de-f*cking-do by the way), you should be aware of these considerations when forming an opinion.


I'd be happy to, but I'll remind you, your first post in this thread was nothing more than willful ignorance of scientific information. If you're honestly getting an A* in physics, you're smart enough to know that the atlantic currents causing localised cooling would not only not disprove global warming but would be a direct result of global warming and your presenting of this is intentional misinformation hoping to gather support without having to try. It's dishonest and an rather underhanded tactic in debate that only works on the painfully misinformed that I will not hesitate to call you on. If you intend a reasonable civil debate, do not use these tactics again.

You then go on to imply that scientists are corrupt, something I would never expect from someone who claims to have such a high grade in physics as you'd think you'd have developed some respect for the field. I took that as an insult. You are intentionally using emotional pleading and inflamatory language to insinuate that scientist can't be trusted in an attempt to argue against any future points I, or anyone else for that matter, may bring up, which you know will be scientific in nature. It's nothing more than a pre-emptive ad-hominem and I find it very insulting. As a scientist myself I pride myself on my integrity, it's the guiding principal of the scientific method and you disreguarded it without a care to push a political agenda. It was pathetic and as a scientist yourself you should be ashamed.

These are the reasons I didn't bother with a civil debate from the start. Because you didn't either. Practice what you preach and you've be treated with nothing but civility and respect. Try emotional pleading, logical fallacies and outright lies and I will treat you with contempt. In the arena of intellectual debate, someone honesty and integrity is their most important quality. I treat purposeful liars like scum, because in this arena, they deserve no better.


Swearing carries with it an intensity. The words serve a purpose. I use them to express anger, disgust and other powerful emotions that without such words would take a lot longer to convey. People who don't use swear words in a debate are either being insincere and intentionally being polite, or have no passion. I will not stop swearing, they're words nothing more, don't like them, don't talk to me, it's as simple as that. The simple facts are that none of the swear words used detract from my points they simply emphasise my opinion, so don't pretend I'm replacing my arguments with swear words because it's a f*cking lie... (see what I did there).


I am better than everyone else. I am an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable individual who has been debating as a hobby for a long time. I intend to win every debate I engage in and as such I assume, usually rightly, that I'm the more intelligent person in the debate. If you want to convice me otherwise please try. If you where expecting me to deny this, don't underestimate my sense of confidence, I am unwavering and almost never wrong, because when I speak up it's because I know what hell I'm talking about. Sorry if this upsets or offends anyone, but let's not pretend that every single person on this forum considers themselves much higher than anyone else on this forum. To earn my respect is difficult, to lose it, incredibly easy.


Actually know, I'm disabled and currently not able to work. But my point was that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't complain about how taxes are spent in such a way as to indicate that they feel they're being robbed. It's disingenuous and makes the person in question simply look like a selfish douche.


By definition, if your opinion is different from mine, I think your opinion is wrong. If I stop thinking everyone elses opinion is wrong when they disagree with me, I'd be agreeing with them, wouldn't I? This statement couldn't be more stupid if you tried. It's as though you're unfamiliar with the definition of the word opinion. Here I'll spell it out for you.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, I THINK YOU'RE WRONG!

I never thought I'd ever have to clarify that. Are you sure you're getting an A* in Physics, because as someone who GOT an A* in physics, you certainly don't seem like the type. Now seriously, either prove my arguments wrong, give evidence in support of your own arguments and learn to conduct yourself with the decorum expected in an adult debate or just leave, because all this posturing you're doing isn't going to help you.