Ask500

| Login

Do you agree with the proposition that “Global warming is probably happening and probably a threat”? Has your view changed? Ask a Question

7 Answers

Type in "global warming" in the search box at the to[ right of the page. You will find reams of material already posted on this site about this question.

4 Replies to dauguy's answer

Okay sorry, I should have done that: I've returned to this site for the first time in a year and was intersted to see if the consensus here had changed. From what I see in previous questions, Global warming believers would be expected to outnumber skeptics on this site by 2:1 or more. Sorry if I'm going over old ground. On the other hand, if it's coming up repeatedly, there is a reason for that too. Also, I'm interested to see if people have changed their views, I can't see another question which has asked about that.

This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)

This comment was deleted.

And Piltdown Man made evolution by means of natural selection untrue...wait...not, it didn't.

I do think that people are polluting the atmosphere and creating global warming, but I also think that the world is going through a stage of heating-cooling that it has gone through since the begining of time. Example: Ice Age. But ultimmatley I think that people are giving off too much carbon dioxide and causing this.

3 Replies to NadiaDarbane4ever's answer

This comment was deleted.

This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

3 Replies to deleted user's answer

Both terms are heavily used to refer to the same thing - just Google them or check them in on-line reference works and you'll get the idea. I preferred "global warming" because it suggests the whole planet, and it suggests which way the climate is supposed to be changing. "Anthropogenic global warming" would have been more accurate, but also more confusing for some. (However, with hindsight I think the rest of my question is far too wordy)

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

9 Replies to deleted user's answer

You do realise that the article is about genuine scientists disputing the claims of a weatherman, and that the scientists in question support the climate change theory?

This comment was deleted.

So the article does not support your comment at all!

This comment was deleted.

Guess what? No one's interested in your uneducated rants. Fuck off somewhere else.

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

Damn it. I fed the troll, didn't I?

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

I was more skeptical in the past, but having seen much of the evidence I now accept that AGW is the most likely explanation. The strident cries of "fraud" and "hoax" only serve to turn me away from the denialist argument, because baseless accusations are the last refuge of the ignorant. If people have dissenting opinions and evidence to back them up then there is a mechanism by which they can be heard, it's called "publishing in peer reviewed journals". Odd, I don't see them doing that.

Climate has become a highly politicised issue, making it nutritious fodder for the media machine which, a brief perusal of many media outlets will show, often creates controversy by poor reporting and misrepresentation. And I don't mean just anti-AGW media. By reducing the complexities to the lowest common denominator, by reporting as fact mere conjecture, by focussing on dire worst case scenarios they paint scientists as guessmaking doomsayers. Which is not to say scientists are entirely blameless; they need to communicate more effectively to non-experts both their methods and findings. Without understanding it's easy to be taken in by things which sound all sciency and shit - case in point: AiG.

1 Replies to SpangeNW's answer

This comment was deleted.